The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, says that Iraq wants a timetable for withdrawal. He is willing to base it on conditions. Such an arrangement would name milestones, such as having Iraqi forces take over the security for the city of Bagdad. Once Iraq reached a milestone, U.S. forces would leave the area within a specified time. Zebari says that Iraq would modify the timeline if conditions changed. President Bush, however, is firm in his refusal to agree to a timeline. The Iraqis are firm in their desire for one. The impasse may be more dangerous than it looks.
On the same day the foreign minister talked to reporters about the negotiations, a suicide bomber killed five people, including an American soldier, a few miles away. The Bush administration points to such attacks as reason to remain in Iraq, pointing to the need for a "beachhead for democracy" in the Middle East. Such reasoning reminds one of William Howard Taft, who noted that "‘our little brown brothers' would need ‘fifty or one hundred years' of close supervision ‘to develop anything resembling Anglo-Saxon political principles and skills (Wikipedia).'"
In 1960, the United Nations declared that all peoples have the right to decide their political status (UN Resolution 1514(XV)). This is known as the right of self-determination, and it states that people around the world have the right to choose the form of their government. The United States cannot keep trying to force its brand of democracy on the region without having its motives called into question.
The people of Iraq are overwhelmingly Muslim. Islamic values often conflict with American capitalism. Bush cannot discount Iraqi values when thinking about their choice of government. U.S. style democracy, with its obsession with the free market, corporate welfare, and a campaign finance system that amounts to legalized bribery, may not be to the taste of the Iraqi nation. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely Iraqis will be to see it as a colonial occupation.
Iraq holds the world's second largest oil reserves of 112 billion barrels. Only Saudi Arabia has a greater proven resource. Critics of the Iraqi invasion have called it attempt to raid that reserve. Administration officials have called such claims "utter nonsense." Whether or not the U.S. invaded Iraq so it could get its hands on that oil, it is not in its interest to jeopardize its access to it.
When he refuses to consider a schedule for withdrawal, Bush begins to look like he has a permanent U.S. presence in mind. It is hard to blame Iraqis for being less than enthusiastic for such a presence. Bush thus risks alienating Iraq and pushing it into an alliance with Iran, an even less friendly, less moderate Islamic state.
Iran sees the security of Iraq as being in its best interest. It has pledged to help secure Iraq (Tehran Times). Iran has been developing alliances with India, Pakistan, and China over the last several years, working with them to construct the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (IPI). This so-called "peace pipeline" will lead to a ready market. It will give Asian countries a greater stake in the region, and reduce the need to sell oil to the United States. In the past, the United States has pressured India not to buy Iranian gas. Economic growth there will limit our ability to do so indefinitely. Given the growing appetite in Asia for oil, the alliance of Iran and Iraq against the United States should worry Washington.
President Bush should take more generous attitude toward Iraqi demands for self-determination and self-rule. Doing so could pay big dividends.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 72
One the one hand, any withdrawal should be in conjunction with an Iraqi stepped-up security force.
On the other hand, I don't trust Iran to help insure Iraq's security at all, the two countries have been at odds forever, so, should we leave at all?
I have trouble deciding on this one.
Oh, and by the way with the number of US airstrips being built there I can't help but feel those planning this fiasco intend to be there a loooooong time.
and yet thinks it is not in our best interests to leave Iraq until we are
damn good and ready, and that might perhaps mean until we are
sure we are not going to attack Iran, need to avoid WWIII, have oil
contracts and oil flowing to the US and the world, etc.
I know I probably am, just asking.
but that might just be about right.
As far as the either or of the US forcing its style of democracy on the world,
the having our motives suspect is fine with me, it will happen anyway.
Does any suspect the motives of Russia invading Georgia? What is anyone
going to do about it?
I absolutely know in my gut we are going to have a permament presence
there just as McCain says, and I do not think it is a bad thing.
I see it this way, and sorry for going on at length, like anyone is going
to read this ... we cannot do anything about China but try, we cannot
do anything about Russia by try, but we can do something about
the Middle East, and the oil means that we have to do something
about the Middle East. I think the mythology of radical Islam is not
well understood by Americans, and it means that if we do nothing
they will end up to be twice the threat of both russia and china
combined, as well as owning about 15% of our corporations and
country.
I agree that radical Islam is a threat. However, SOMETHING must have happened to cause the radicalization. A million Muslims did not just wake up one day and decide, "I think I'll kill some infidels! Won't that be fun!" Terrorism is what happens when the voiceless loose their patience with asking for their rights with no results.
I get a chuckle out of statements like these. We can't seem to influence Iraq to any great degree so how is Islam going to dominate the world if the world doesn't want to be dominated?
Radical Islam is starting to make a serious mistake. They have started bombing and killing people in the far western provinces of China. If they continue China will obliterate them. China will not worry about silly things like the Pakastani Border. If Pakastani doesn't like it they will simply obliterate them.
So much happening but no one sees...
The blinders of hate, the blinders of intolerance...
Oh how we rant forgetting our own plight...
So many problems no one to solve them...
Words spoken but to empty air...
Sigh...
:O\
Your article is Featured in the Triple Name Club.
Alienating the Whole Iraqi Population will not
help us fight terrorists or deter further recruits.
We need to work with the Iraqi Gov.,
no matter if the are taking baby steps.
Now that terrorism is a growing threat inside of China,
and still a major problem to the Russians,
perhaps a smart negotiator, someone well respected around the world, will have an opportunity to turn around our disastrous foreign policy of the past 7 years and get some real progress accomplished in the urgent area of future security of the world.
Oh, my.
There are many, many of us who really do not want our sons and daughters to be sent there again.
a stake in seeing relative security to help control commerce.
Unfortunately a larger bloc profits from chaos, illness, disease and death.
> I agree that radical Islam is a threat. However,
> SOMETHING must have happened to cause the radicalization.
> A million Muslims did not just wake up one day and
> decide, "I think I'll kill some infidels! Won't that
> be fun!" Terrorism is what happens when the voiceless
> loose their patience with asking for their rights
> with no results.
Very good point that I have rarely heard discussed in an open
ended manner. I could be wrong, but I have not heard valid
counter-arguments based on fact to this interpretation of
history that I have read about.
First, Islam is sort of radical by nature. Looking even at
the relatively quiet areas of the world where Islam exists,
it must rule. It must control women, it must control
people via a low tech totalitarianism. The penalty in many
areas for being different is death.
There are some Muslims who have found peace in Islam, and I
consider them the true Muslims, and unfortunately a minority,
at least in the loudness of their voice if not their
numbers. But radicalization is hitting them as well, and it
is not just the fault of the West.
If you trace the radical groups back Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda,
Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah etc they lead back to the Muslim
Brotherhood, formed in Egypt after WWII. If you look at who
was most instrumental in forming the Muslim Brotherhood, you
find one man who began his career as an appointee of the
British government in the 1920s. The British thought that
appointing a religous man would lead to peace in this area,
so they supported Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. The British were
totally wrong and soon had to outlaw Husanyni and try to hunt
him down for support of terrorism.
Husaynis goal was to rid the Holy Land of the British and the
Jews, and to do that eventually led him into declaring the
Palestinian Arabs, and the Arabs of Eastern Europe, the
Ottoman Empire as members of the Axis, Nazi, forces in WWII.
Husayni was a trusted and valued ally of Hitler and spent
most of WWII in an aparment provided for him by Hitler in
Berlin. He commanded to SS brigades and was active in the
holocaust, and in preventing Jews from escaping, expecially
to the Holy Land.
At the end of the war he escaped to Egypt. He began his
terrorist activities. His most valued protege was his
nephew, Yasir Arafat who was trained in terrorism by Husayni
and eventually became the elected head of the PLO.
If you notice there are photos on the Internet of Hamas and
Hezbollah in formation giving the Nazi salute which they have
adopted. So when Iranian President Ahmadinejad makes his
statements worldwide that why should Palestinians pay for
Germany's crimes, he is talking through his teeth, he knows
the history of this area, surely better than I, an American
secular, former Christian.
This is a start.
Something different.
and still a major problem to the Russians,
perhaps a smart negotiator, someone well respected around the world, will have an opportunity to turn around our disastrous foreign policy of the past 7 years and get some real progress accomplished in the urgent area of future security of the world".... Neil K., Aug 11, 2008, 10:43pm EDT
This would be a smart move and should have been our goal after 9/11. Instead of the famous "if you aint with us your agin us speech" diplomacy should have been set in motion to convince the rest of the world that they too were targets and we need to work together on this. A little less cowboy and a lot more intelligence if you will.
Jeff, here is the 1970's in terrorism, do you need me to feed the other decades, or do you have a finger and a keyboard to look for your own self. Do you need help changing your diaper too?
Palestinian nationalist Sirhan Sirhan shot Robert F. Kennedy to death 1968.
Just the highlights Jeff, there is a lot more to mention ... how about the Munich Olympics? Remember that?
we helped to create some of them through financial and military aid
(sometimes covertly, sometimes overtly).
I agree we certainly don't need another faux cowboy (with cowchips for brains) leading
US.
Of course he can....and he does it very well, just as he and his adminstration discount American values, like we do not torture, and we do not spy on ourselves, and we respect habeus corpus, etc. etc. etc. Bush is a criminal. And he will not leave Iraq until he is out of power. And he and his minions will continue their power through the puppet presence of McCain in the WH.
Our only hope to reverse this global suicidal track the US is on is to vote for Obama.
Precisely what they said about Vietnam. Once we left, they became capitalist.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Bush should just go play cowboy back at his ranch til Obama takes over. Every time I see the guy open his mouth I cringe with embarassment.
What have they done, 1.2 Million Iraqi deaths, 5.0 million refugees wander Iraq and neighboring countries, instead of roses there are road side bombs and sewage in the streets. Instead of rebuilding Iraq, they have build 12 military bases.
They said Iraq oil would pay for the invasion of Iraq. Instead we have spent 1/2 trillion dollars on the "war" effort with another trillion or so for the permanent care of our 35,000 wounded heroes and of the 12 billion in cash sent to Iraq 9 billion is unaccounted for to date. Of the billions of Iraqi money found after the invasion, none of it is accounted for today. Thats quite a record of accomplishment. Is it no wonder we would be asked to leave with the Bush McCain definition of success the Iraqi would be wise to accept no more of that kind of fatal gratuity.
All people in the world knew that the oil was the real cause except americans!!!
If oil is unimportant to you maybe you have your own oil well and refinery, but here in the US for most people our country and economy depend on it, thus our startegic reaction. When most Americans cannot understand that or are too lazy to do anything to followyup on it thinking that things will just take care of themselves, then Democracy becomes dangerous and life-threatening.
I think it may take longer to move out.
For them to ask this they must know they can handle it, but what I hear from this military is they we must protect our interest, what interest?
I think deals with oil companies have already been made.
We need to contact our congressional representatives and tell them we've had enough of this Iraq occupation, which is what it is at this point.
Carla, I think Georgia and Russia is about the US talking about putting missiles in Georgia and making it a member of NATO. Russia is threatened by that.
It is for this reason that we really, really need to be aware of the character and psychological make-up of who we elect as leaders. I hear McCain has a really, really bad temper problem. This is not the guy you want with his finger on the nuclear trigger.
As for my other sources, if the Tehran Times cannot be trusted to report truthfully about the goings on in its own city, particularly to quote Iranian government spokesmen, they must be owned by Fox. And my citation of the United Nations? Do you have a problem with it? Have you read the document in question?
Your comment looks to me like a mean-spirited attempt to undercut the conversation without really engaging in any thought or effort. If you wish to discuss this matter, please join in. If you get your jollies from attacking people you never met because you disagree with them, go suck your thumb.
That is one of the sickest comments I have ever seen from a neoKKKon America hater.
Over a million Iraqis have died and several million more have fled from their unstable country. What was once a prosperous country is now in unprecedented despair. But this is what the right wing calls "progress".
And how do you wrong wingers propose to pay for your war?
I have not liked George Bush from the beginning, but no matter how many times I tell me myself to give him a chance, he does something else to keep re-affirming to me that he was never qualified to be president. It's unfortunate that a twist of "chad" fate put him in the White House. By the way, everytime I see him speak, I am actually embarassed to say he his my president. He sounds so illiterate and unpolished.
I have often contended that George Bush only does things for George Bush's benefit, and I think that America is invading Iraq for 2 reasons: the avenge the job his father couldn't finish and to line his pockets. Without rehashing what he did to convince Congress to go to war, we are at war and the better question is "what do we do now?"
I say we cut our losses and get out of dodge as quick as possible. It's not worth risking any more of the lives of our men and women. We had no right being there in the first place.
I happened to catch a snippet of the news today and saw a brief piece of Bush talking about the Georgia/Russia situation and he said "bullying and intimidation is not appropriate in foreign affairs and will not be tolerated" (something to that affect). Now that is the pot calling the kettle black.