By William E. Odom
diane@hudson.org

Mythologies about the war in Iraq are endangering our republic, our rights, and our responsibilities before the world. The longer we fail to dispel them, the higher price we will pay. The following six truths, while perhaps not self-evident to the American public, are nevertheless conspicuously obvious to much the rest of the world.

Truth No. 1:  No "deal" of any kind can be made among the warring parties in Iraq that will bring stability and order, even temporarily.  

Ever since the war began to go badly in the summer of 2003, a mythology has arisen that a deal among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could bring peace and stability to Iraq. First, the parliamentary elections were expected to be such a breakthrough. When peace and stability did not follow, the referendum on a constitution was proclaimed the panacea. When that failed, it was asserted that we just had not yet found the proper prime minister. Even today, the Iraq Study Group is searching for this holy grail. It doesn’t exist.

Truth No. 2:  There was no way to have "done it right" in Iraq so that U.S. war aims could have been achieved. 

Virtually every new book published on the war, especially Cobra II, Fiasco, and State of Denial, reinforce the myth – the illusion – that  we could have won the war; we just did not plan properly and fight the war the right way. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and most other major newspapers have consistently filled their opinion pages with arguments and testimonials to support that myth. (Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University offers the most recent conspicuous reinforcement of this myth in the Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2006.)

The fragmentation of the country, civil war, and the rise of outside influence from Iran, Syria, and other countries – all of these things might have been postponed for a time by different war plans and occupation polices. But failure would have eventually raised its ugly head. Possibly, some of the variables would be a bit different. For example, if the Iraqi military had not been dissolved and if most of the Baathist Party cadres not been disenfranchised, the Sunni factions, instead of the Shiites, probably would have owned the ministry of interior, the police, and several unofficial militias. The Shiites, in that event, would have been the insurgents, abundantly supplied by Iran, indiscriminately killing Sunni civilians, fighting the U.S. military forces, blowing up the power grid, and so on.

A different U.S. occupation plan might have changed the course Iraq has taken to civil war and fragmentation, but it could have not prevented that outcome.

Truth No. 3: The theory that "we broke it and therefore we own it," with all the moral baggage it implies, is simply untrue because it is not within U.S. power to "fix it." 

The president’s cheerleaders in the run-up to the war now use this theory to rationalize our continued presence in Iraq, and in that way avoid admitting that they share the guilt for the crime of breaking Iraq in the first place.

Truth No. 4: The demand that the administration engage Iran and Syria directly, asking them to help stabilize Iraq, is patently naïve or cynically irresponsible until American forces begin withdrawing – and rapidly – so that there is no ambiguity about their complete and total departure.

Effective negotiations will be possible, even with Iran, but only after the U.S. withdraws.  And such negotiations must be based on a candid recognition that Iran will come out of this war with a much enhanced position in the Middle East. Until these realities are acknowledged, the planning staffs in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department will not begin addressing the most important tasks awaiting them in confronting the post-Iraq War world.

First among them is how to help the Arab Gulf states cope with a stronger Iran, one that has territorial claims on the Arab side of the Gulf. Second is dealing with the increased threat to Israel that comes from the U.S. defeat in Iraq, its own recent misguided war against Hezbollah, looming instability in Lebanon, and the large number of experienced al Qaeda cadres produced by the war in Iraq. Moreover, as the Sunni-Shiite split in the Arab world spreads from Iraq into neighboring Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, not to mention Lebanon, the United States will be facing a dynamic it has little power to limit.

These new challenges will not be manageable by the United States alone. Europe will have to join with the United States in meeting them. American neocons who have sought to split the United States from Europe, as well as Europeans who tilt excessively in favor the Palestinians, will have to change their tunes if Israel is to survive the upheaval that the U.S. and the Israeli governments so eagerly perpetrated.

The media have not begun to recognize and explain the dramatic changes catalyzed in the Middle East by the war in Iraq. Most editors are not even willing to contemplate them, preferring to pretend they do not exist, probably because they bear some responsibility for creating them.        

Truth No. 5: The United States cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The only sure way to stop Iran's program is to invade with ground troops and occupy the country indefinitely.  Both Iran and North Korea learned from Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facilities and have hardened their own to make bombing only marginally effective at best. Having squandered ground force capabilities in Iraq, the U.S. does not have sufficient forces to invade Iran, even if that made sense. And bombing would produce all the undesirable consequences of that action but not the most desirable one. Yet the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other newspapers editorialize as if this is not so. 

Truth No. 6: It is simply not possible to prevent more tragic Iraqi deaths in Iraq.

Many pundits and politicians – particularly those who howled for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003 -- posture about human rights abuses that will occur if U.S. troops are withdrawn rapidly. The way to have avoided moral responsibility for these abuses was not to invade in the first place. At present, U. S. military forces in Iraq merely facilitate arrests and executions by Shiite officials in the police and some army units. These, of course, are mainly in reaction to the Baathist-led insurgency. This struggle will continue, with or without U.S. forces present, although the forms and tactics of the struggle will change after U.S. forces withdraw. An earlier withdrawal, one or two years ago, would probably have allowed this struggle to be fought to a conclusion by now. Our well-meaning efforts to prevent blood baths are more likely causing them to be bigger, not smaller.

The Iraq Study Group’s recommendations could be used to dispel these myths and prompt a rapid withdrawal, but it remains to be seen if either the president and his aides or the Congress can or will use them for that purpose. The “one last big try” aspect of the recommendations, if pursued vigorously, will just make the final price the catastrophe higher. The media, by dispelling the foregoing list of myths, could make that less likely.

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), a frequent contributor to NiemanWatchdog, died May 30, 2008, apparently of a heart attack. Odom in recent years had been an aggressive critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and was one of the first to call for removing American troops from Iraq. For many years a highly popular professor at Yale, he had been director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan from 1985 to 1988.

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

Posted by Jerome Dobbins - citizen 12/17/2006, 08:25 AM I believe #4 is a dream also. There is No reason for Iran to talk to the United States.They hold all the cards. Bush has united the Arab fundamentalists. We will never again be the player in the Mid East that we were. Osama laughs Speaking Of Osama and the Middle East and Western media... The International Herald Tribune posted an article about the Taliban mini state now in Pakistan. Not a peep in US news. To win the "war on terror" you have to WANT to. To me this is all just a money maker and a rip off of the US Treasury.

Inability to acknowledge the truth-Part 1 Posted by mike ness - 12/17/2006, 12:05 PM While there are some aspects of General Odom's list of truths that are in fact truths, it would appear that he suffers from the same lack of factual acknowledgement regarding the root cause of this entire conflict that most in the Bush administration and all on the left have displayed so far. This is a first and foremost a theological war, if one could not all ready surmise that based upon not only the words of all of the terrorists organizations in the world but for anyone willing to read some of the transcripts that have been coming out daily off of middle eastern Television and radio for nearly 30 plus years. This war is not one that started on 9-11 nor dare one say even with the kidnapping of the Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972 and all other manners of things that have happened in between, no this war is 1,400 years old. It cuts down the line between Muslims and non-Muslims. Make no mistake there is no grey in this area on the part of our Muslim aggressors. Of course once again anyone watching the poll numbers coming out of the Middle East, even in areas that have much different sects from the one's the questions are about, see huge support percentage wise for all of these groups. There is no discernable animosity between Shiite and Sunni when it comes to the question of destroying Israel or the United States. There is an old Arab/Muslim saying that goes something like this: me verse my brother; my brother and myself verse our cousin, and my brother, myself and our cousin verse the stranger. It is pretty easy to pick out who the stranger(s) would be in this little thought. There are numerous examples of Shiite and Sunni groups working together in order to do damage to Israel and or the United States. Non-believers are what will always galvanize the over-all Muslim community. Odom does correctly assess that the tribal, religious and other issues we are facing in Iraq are not something that we can solve, at least not in the next 100 years most likely. To solve this issue is to either divide the country into three parts as has been suggested and or allow one group to commit a form of religious genocide on the other. Don't think the latter is an option. Of course even within the Shiite ranks we see division. Some if not most of this is a tribal thing. Continued....below

Inability to acknowledge the truth-Part 2 Posted by mike ness - 12/17/2006, 12:08 PM Our problem, in going into Iraq, is that this was not the country we should have gone into. We should have gone into Iran first and foremost. Iraq was politically expedient it was not the correct choice on any front. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It has been working towards and is getting eerily close to going nuclear. It also has one of the few populations in the entire Muslim world that is predominately of one ethnic make-up; Persian. On top of that 60% of the country speaks Persian and well over 75% of the entire population is literate. This is a country, the Ayatollahs aside that has still been able to maintain much of its old British infrastructure regarding education. This is a country before the fall of the Shah that was well ahead of most of its Arab neighbors culturally and otherwise by a good 100 to 200 years. You can develop what we want in this region, namely a western style democracy, with statistics like that. We also would have had several other wonderful effects take place had we toppled the current Iranian regime instead of wasting our time in Iraq. Hezbollah and Syria would have been effectively neutered, Hezbollah probably destroyed. Lebanon would now be free of Syria completely and perhaps working its way back. Assad would be a lap dog right now and Sadaam would have also most likely been reduced if to nothing if not driven out of Iraq with an American invasion of Iran. Also, we would have taken away one of the other factors in this region and that is the instability theologically that Iran has being stirring up since 1979 with its fanatical Shiite theocracy. We are in a religious war of course, so taking over Iran would have been a much better first step but it does not gain us the theological re-structuring we need to bring this 1,400 year conflict to an end. There are simply far too many directives coming from the Koran and the Haddith to count that spell out rather precisely how Muslims are supposed to behave in all manners towards non-Muslims. World domination is not only spelled our very clearly in these texts but it is also seen in the actions of the founder of Islam, Mohammad. This is a much trickier issue, one that can be very difficult for a country like America to not only face about its true enemies but also to discuss in a broader context in regards as to how to solve this problem. continued below...

Inability to acknowledge the truth-Part 3 Posted by mike ness - 12/17/2006, 12:09 PM Certainly as long as these verses continue to exist in these Muslim Holy books we are going to continue to see issues with the Muslim world. Sharria law, there version of tolerance is anything but and is often a very violent means of conversion. All of this has to be changed, there we come upon a much tougher question of which I am not sure there is any true answer. The only thing that comes to mind is that we have to first instill fear in this region, something that can only be achieved militarily, and from this fear we must then westernize them as quickly as possible. Iraq is winnable in so much as we should leave it completely and do what we should have done in the first place and that is replace the regime in Iran. The End : ) I appologize for the length.

Assumptions Posted by Rowan Berkeley - 12/18/2006, 02:15 AM I find this statement rather interesting: "Europeans who tilt excessively in favor the Palestinians, will have to change their tunes if Israel is to survive the upheaval... " As far as I can discern the underlying asumptions here, they are as follows. First, in the long run, US calls the shots, not Europe. Second, The survival of Israel (as a 'Jewish State') is a must. Third, the idea that the determination to reconstitute the constitutional arrangements of 'the Jewish State' so that it will acquire the multicultural legitimacy normally associated with 'democracies' doesn't even arise.

Accountablility Posted by Tom Shields - 12/18/2006, 05:10 AM One way to win trust and friends in the middle east would be to convict the criminals responsible for the Iraq war and our failed policy. A critical look at who truly murdered almost 3000 citizens on September 11, 2001, and the press that promoted that lies is in order. Groucho Marx said, "Inntegrity is everything. When you can fake integrity you have got it made." The U.S. is no longer very good at faking integrity.

The Cost of the War in Iraq Posted by Timothy Bal - Citizen 12/18/2006, 06:54 AM I agree with General Odom. Moreover, the loss of American lives in an insane war is horrific. However, I would like to suggest another line of inquiry concerning the tragedy of this war. I never hear the following question: is the war in Iraq the best use of the funds we are borrowing to finance the war? Let us suppose that so far, the direct and indirect costs to the United States are about $500 billion. Would not our national security be better served by a Manhattan Project to develop viable nuclear fusion power? My guess is that we could have done that with as little as $50 billion. Then, we could have very cheap electricity and ween our economy off imported oil. We could also use the rest of the $500 billion on other worthy priorities, such as health care for all our citizens, and free public university education. Finally, we could make a large dent in our income inequality problem by setting up a large negative income tax for low-income workers. After changing our priorities as indicated, we would be well on our way to becoming a model political system for the developing world. This would lead to more democracies around the world, and to a more peaceful world. One final thought. We need to avoid nation-building like the plague. Our military might should only be used for two purposes: defending our homeland, and issuing a punishment to a deserving nation or terrorist group. Our ground forces should only be used to defend our own soil. We can use naval and air forces to deliver pain and destruction, rarely, and if needed.

Spilt milk Posted by Dianne Foster - 12/18/2006, 10:04 AM For all the crying over spilt milk of a failed attempt to control the post-Saddam fate of the "linchpin" that Iraq has been called, there are those who want a do-over. They want to raise the stakes by attacking Iran (because that is what they "should" have done before). As an American citizen and thus a target (with Brits) of the campaign to sex up the dossier against Saddam, I can only imagine the giant machinery turning somewhere in the background for those intent upon getting us into Iran, for the more "useful" war. I imagine a draft will be necessary, but only acceptable if there is a provocation, such as the destruction of a big chunk of our fleet or something like that. But on the shore on which I sit, also at a laptop like my neocon brothers, happily pounding away on the foulness of Iran, I consider a few things. My country is hobbling along as its Constitution is abused. My relatives who live in Israel are actually also American citizens with the option to come back. I note that they were in harm's way last summer. I consider that a war with Iran cannot make anyone there or here better off. And I note that many irresponsible powers in the world now have nukes. So what else is new? I am not horrified by Ahmadinejad's gathering of the Klans, in fact I find it pathetic. That man is not the next Hitler. Saddam was supposed to be. How many Second Comings does Hitler get before we acknowledge that he is not undead? Okay, bring the troops home from Iraq. The patient is riddled with cancer. He must simply be stitched up and given palliative relief. Let us treat Iraq as such, and never mess with rearranging societies we know nothing about. Most of us cannot even speak their languages. I am for an immediate pull-out, don't complain and don't explain. And no do-overs. We lost.

Nonsense from Nessie Posted by Julian Jackson - Earth Citizen 12/18/2006, 10:57 AM I would hope for a better understanding of the facts, rather than undigested MSM noise from Mike Ness, in a site which claims to be about good journalism. The Iranians are not the "largest sponsors of terror" in the world. That award goes to the USA (aided usually by the UK). See www.killinghope.org ... Here's just one example of the USA aiding the slaughter of Guatemalans: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121706D.shtml ... In actual fact, the Iranians have not sponsored any terror against the USA for about 25 years, and are acting, as far as they can, as a restraining force on Shiite militants in Iraq because they fear the chaos spreading. The war in Iraq is a war for two things: Control of the Oil (the world's most essential resource) Support of the Petrodollar see articles by William Clark http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html ... It's imperialism, not some clash of civilisations. Not to mention that the US attacking Iran would be both a crime of aggression, and extremely foolish.

the 7th truth Posted by richard vajs - 12/18/2006, 11:44 AM Let me add another "truth" - Israel is a no-longer needed experiment. After the horrors of WWII, it seemed necessary to establish a sanctuary for Jews so that they wouldn't be victimized again. So Israel was established as a "grand social experiment". It was thought that placing the displaced Jews of Europe in Palestine would allow democracy to flourish there and marry westernized Jewish technology to the native backwards culture to the betterment of all. Instead Israel has become a modern day Sparta that loathes its Arab neighbors (and is loathed in return). Israel exists only through a very expensive lifeline of military and financial aid from the West (essentially the USA). Also discrimination against Jews in the West has thankfully disappeared. If anyone doubts that - how else do you explain the achievements of Jews in the USA - political, educational, aqnd financial. Where are the miserable ghettos? Shaker Heights, Silver Spring, Palm Springs? Where are the Jews lacking access to education (30% of Ivy League enrollment uis Jewish)? Where is the political disenfranchiement (AIPAC run Congress)? Truth is that Jews do not need to go to Israel to live decent lives. And that is the awful truth that scares the Israeli leaders. That Westernized Jews will stay in the West where live can be better for them. True there are some religious Jews who want very much to be in Palestine but they have always lived there (and in Iraq, Persia, etc.) A westernized Jewish controlled Palestine is an emotional choice not a necessity, and it is time to recognize this truth. Otherwise, the USA will bankrupt itself trying to maintain a no longer needed experiment.

The 7th Truth, AMEN! Posted by John Doe - 12/18/2006, 12:14 PM Yes,it is absolutely true that the good intentions of the late 40's to create the "Jewish State" have come to haunt the west since it was created. Yes, it is true that most of the discrimination is by Jews against those that are not part of the cult. Isreali Jewish culture and American Jewish culture today is a cult of capitalists who worship money and power above all else. I for one am sick of the viscous attacks by AIPAC or other anti-defamation leagues regarding honest comments or statements regarding Israeli behavior which as former President Carter states is a form of slavery for the Palestineans. The fact is that Israel is a failed experiment because it has caused nothing but misery and chaos in the middle east. I challenge anyone to state what positive things have been brought about in Muslim culture or Arab nations thanks to Israel. We are in Iraq for Oil and for the Israeli Lobby. How many Israeli's have died in Iraq? The answer is NONE.

Response to Mike Ness Posted by Gary Barnett - President/Barnett Financial Services, Inc. 12/18/2006, 12:36 PM Mike, I would like to point out a few things inherently wrong with your assessment of Retired General Odom's comments. Your single supposed premise concerning the Middle East is that everything going on is strictly "theological". While Muslems make decisions based on their religious beliefs, so has every other culture throughout history. This would include the United States as well. Whether their religious beliefs are radical in your mind or not, there is much more to it than that, and you failed to mention any of the underlying events leading up to this unnecessary and unconstitutional war. We have been interfereing in the Middle East, and in a very aggressive manner, since at least 1953. We have attempted assinations, displaced elected leaders, changed regimes by force, supported dictators with weapons and money, instilled brutal sanctions, and warred against many without cause. We also, and with taxpayer money, support their worst enemy, Israel. If you believe that these things are irrelavant, then you are sorely mistaken. Also, your only solution is to go to war and destroy Iran. Why? They are certainly no threat militarily to the United States, and have never attacked us. We did though, install a brutal regime in Iran in 1953, causing the citizenry 25 years of totalitarian rule. We also forced Iraq into war against them in the past and supplied weapons, money and intelligence to Iraq in their effort to destroy Iran, even though Iran had never attacked us in the first place. Finally, just in case you forgot about that little thing called the constitution, we can not legally go to war against anyone unless we have been attacked or are under iminent threat, and then only with a formal Congressional Declaration of War. Neither of these things are present. Attacking any country under ANY circumstance other than this makes us the aggressor, and is not only against our founding purpose, but is completely immoral! Your biases are obvious which weakens or completely destroys your argument. As long as you look at only facts you deem important and ignor the rest, objectivness is lost, and nothing worthwhile can be acomplished. Gary Barnett Lewistown, Montana

GENERAL ODOM'S SIX BRUTAL TRUTHS NEED A SEVENTH Posted by H Michael Hawkins - Retired Federal and International Employee 12/18/2006, 02:02 PM As the father of a high ranking U.S. Marine who currently serves in the aviation community in Iraq, I would like to ask Gen. Odom to provide his seventh truth in answering the following: "So we pull the troops out. Then what happens?"

6 Truths about Iraq Posted by William Johnson - 12/18/2006, 02:24 PM For the most part I agree with the general. Yet, I wonder if we would have invaded Iraq if they had no oil? I was talking with a friend recently, a businessman from Egypt and he said he wished the middle east would run out of oil so the rest of the world would have no reason to be there, at least with weapons in hand. Another issue with this or any modern war is that, it's the innocent children who make up the majority of the deaths and that is unacceptable to me. Lastly, as citizens of this country, we are going to have to unite and not allow congress to continue to give war powers to the president. This is unconstitutional, not a partisan issue, yet it has been going on since Truman invaded Korea without congress declaring war. The sad fact is, war is nothing more than state sponsered muder and state sponsered terror. The very things all Americans are supposed to against. When will this change?

Iraq, oil, and the rest of it Posted by Bert Walker - self 12/18/2006, 03:34 PM I think if you distill the whole mess down to the level of a schoolyard fight, the peoples of the middle east know that they have something the USA wants. And, yes, we all know it's oil. Vietnam had oil during the Vietnam war, and still has oil today. Our economy requires oil to operate. In a nutshell, the whole soap opera is about oil. It's even a fair bet that Bush gained office because some parties wanted to get more oil, and figured that he was a good candidate to achieve that for them. Well, here it is, the 21st century, and OPEC's got us over a barrel, giving us the business a-gain. Akin to the old hunter's joke, 'you're not REALLY here for the hunting, are you?', we've gotta get quite a bit smarter on this energy thing, and develop the national unity to wrench back HARD on the amount of petroleum that gets imported to this country annually. A national maximum speed limit, a national limit on oil imports, open-books regulation of the petroleum industry at large, and a national campaign to drastically reduce the amount of petroleum consumed would be a great way to take a strong domestic stand toward the issue of petroleum dependency, and the resultant geopolitical liability that it represents. Hopefully, the Democrats will be acting on this with frank honesty and all due haste. All 50 states working together can have a cumulative positive impact on the situation by acting independently but as a group to promote better fuel efficiency, better usage practices, and moreover much-improved public awareness of the entire situation. We live in the Digital Age, every state could build a website to this end in about, hmm, 20 minutes, were they so inclined. Write your state legislature today to make a suggestion if you're so inclined... some 'battles' are better fought without resorting to bullets, when ballots are indicated.

Invade Iran Leave Iraq Swap Posted by Old Atlantic - Old Atlantic Lighthouse 12/18/2006, 05:20 PM We can take the army in Iraq and use that to invade Iran. Our combat phase deaths in Iraq were under 200. Our occupation phase deaths are over 800 per year. For occupation phase deaths, we get nothing. The cost of not denuking Iran is higher than denuking it. When we fight Vietnam wars, we lose. When we island hop to main enemy homelands, we win. That was our strategy in WWII. We didn't nation build each island or even North Africa, we went to the main enemy homelands. If we leave Iran in control with nukes, we will fight it again and lose more later. The time to fight wars is when battle phase deaths are 200 or even 2000. We are spoiled by the low cost of this war. We are in a war with "radical" Islam, nationalism, demography, etc. That war won't go away until the earth's population reaches equilibrium, 1 to 2 billion. Once Iran is cleared, we take our army now in Iraq to the border of Pakistan, surround it and blockade it at sea with India's help. We force them to denuke. We should defeat the main enemy homelands now, because we will have to fight them with nukes later. Pakistan has subs, missiles and nukes. Iran has 2 of the 3. These countries will put nukes on missiles on subs, and have a fleet off our shore. They will sell them because they can't afford to do all this without selling what they make. Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. will all have these. We will lose millions later because we couldn't lose 2000 or even 20,000 now. We would lose more for one island in WWII, than to win the entire war with Islam in the next year or two. We are ruled by stupidity and myopia. Whatever battle casualties are today, we think are too high. That is the thought of a fool in war. Losing 2000 to 10000 per war is cheap. Finish them now. This is arbitrage.

Response Posted by mike ness - 12/18/2006, 11:08 PM It seems we have the its about Oil and petrodollars crowd chiming it. Of course if that was the case as the saying goes we would have invaded Venezuala for goodness sakes and the food is way better. We are getting essentially nothing out of Iraq at this point either barrells of oil wise and or business wise. I guess what makes this such a hard concept to understand is that when you boil it down to economic terms you seemingly are unable and or in most of your cases I would bet unwilling to acknowledge this is a war between faiths. Those who are muslim and those who are not. Heck, if it were not for Charles the Hammer Martel and El Cid none of us would be having this discussion but instead might well be preparing to bow and pray towards mecca. This happened long before oil was of any use to anyone, may I remind you. Even the most civilized of the bunch in the last 1,400 years by Western standards, the Ottomans under Ataturk had this propensity towards at the very least some extreme ethnic cleansing. Right, Iran has done nothing to the US. Only threatened to nuke us here recently along with Israel and of course there is this little club we like to call Hezbollah which both the CIA and FBI have acknowledged are working on our shores. They don't exist without Iran. Of course many of them work for a group in D.C. called CAIR most likely and actually have access to the White House. Stop with this notion of Iran doing and or not doing anything to us. This is about something much larger than borders. If you want to keep spewing the NYT's cheat sheet knock yourself out, but you will only continue to be baffled by events over there and throughout the world in the coming years. This is a holy war, and it does not matter whether we figure it out or not. If we don't, however, we are not long for this world as a culture, a nation, a people. Heck, they are going to simply take over Western Europe, something they tried numerous times during the course of history and could not do by simply out-breeding the lazy, narcissistic bastards. Mr. Barnette, because you are from near my home in the inland Empire I will cut you some slack for either not knowing about and or simply ignoring what has been said by CIA and FBI people about Hezbollah cells here alive and working to do damage. This is also not about nation states, this is about a faith as I laid out numerous times in the first series of things I wrote. If you can't understand that, sorry to hear.

Also.. Posted by mike ness - 12/18/2006, 11:14 PM It should be noted that the cost ratio's on getting oil out of the tar sads of Canada will quite quickly catch up with the regular costs of getting oil out of the middle east and when that happens we will never again have to worry about the Saudis or any other nation over there. Still, that will not stop them from coming over here. If we pulled out all of our troops tomorrow and gave a Bill Clinton mea culpa we would only assure ourself of an attack with the next six months for sure. They don't possess a western mentality and this doesn't, once again, cut across nationalistic lines. I wish it was about oil, then Robert Redford and his Three Days of the Condor ilk would finally be able to say, see, I told you, 30 years later but I told you. What a joke. Still, I would like to see us put up more nuclear power plants to be sure. It is a dark day when the French actually are ahead of us in anything.

America never intended to attack Iran and will not Posted by Azzam Hussami - 12/19/2006, 02:31 AM If the USA intended to attack Iran It would have done that before it invaded Iraq, because Iran was way ahead of Iraq on the scale of "threat" But the USA wanted to create a Shia Crescent to intimidate Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf countries. The idea is really very simple: without Iranian threats, the gulf countries may stop relying on the USA. Another reason is Iran's threat of derailing the Petrodollar. Make no mistake: we intended every thing that is happenning now. Iraq war was a success and Shia and Sunnis will kill each other for eternity. But really, Why!

The truth is out Posted by Tom Dennen - Journalist / analyst 12/19/2006, 02:39 AM But will America start acting with the forethought, sanity and logic of this man?

Why We Are In Iraq Posted by Timothy Bal - Citizen 12/19/2006, 08:39 AM There has recently been a spate of books explaining how we got into Iraq. I would like to clarify this issue. First of all, it was not about oil. If you calculate how much oil we are getting out of Iraq, you need to include how much oil our military machine is consuming in Iraq, and also the dollar cost of our invasion. I think the correct calculation shows that we are in effect paying one billion dollars per barrel of Iraqi oil. I believe that is a bit higher than what it costs to make oil from ordinary dirt. The reason we are in Iraq, and staying there until we "win", is that George W. Bush wanted to punish Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his Daddy in 1993, and also to "fix" the historical record which, in W's mind, showed a loss for Daddy's War in Iraq because Daddy did not "finish the job". We stay in Iraq, we bleed in Iraq, in order to sate the ego of George W. Bush, who would rather one million people die miserably than admit he made a mistake.

How Cheap Electricity Can Save the Day Posted by Timothy Bal - Citizen 12/19/2006, 08:47 AM Yesterday I offered alternative uses for the $500 billion we are spending on Iraq. One was the development of viable fusion power to generate electricity. Very cheap electricity would mean that homes could be heated economically with electricity instead of gas or oil. It also means it would be cheaper to operate an electric car than a gasoline-powered vehicle. Every time we buy oil or gasoline, some of the dollars end up funding the very terrorists we are trying to defeat, because money is fungible. The funding has many forms. Some are: money to teach students to hate America; money to purchase the explosives which go into IEDs; money for Al Jezera's expenses; money for Al Qaida's travel expenses. It would be a thousand times less expensive to develop fusion power than to hop all around the world trying to kill all the terrorists.

Peace versus War Posted by Timothy Bal - Citizen 12/19/2006, 09:09 AM Our first Bush Iraq War fired up a lot of Islamists, including Al Qaida (AQ). My guess is that, were it not for Bush Iraq War I, there would not have been an attack on 9/11 (or the attack on the WTC in 1993). But we cannot go back and change history. We cannot undo the other insane wars we fought: Korea in the 1950s (the costs of which we are still paying because of the thousands of troops we station there perpetually); Vietnam. Does anyone wonder why the rest of the world hates us? Even the Kuwaitis, whose bacon we saved in Bush Iraq War I, cheered on 9/11. Our founding fathers believed we should not fight other peoples' wars. They were so smart compared to the current crop of leaders we have. A peaceful America is the answer to many of our problems. A humble foreign policy would not remake the world overnight. It will take at least 20 or 30 years of the USA not invading other nations for the world to believe that we have turned a new leaf. But try to imagine the possibilities. I already explained the benefits of cheap electricity. Wouldn't it be great if we simply stopped creating more terrorists? Islamist terrorism did not erupt until our dependence on oil sent trillions of dollars to Middle Eastern states. We have tried belligerence too often. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to try peace.

Brave General Odom Posted by John Walton - 12/20/2006, 11:48 AM I only wish to say that Lt. General William Odom (ret) is perhaps the most singularly cogent and powerful voice on the Iraq question. Brave General Odom! Please keep up your work of regaining our national sanity.

Response to Mike ness Posted by Gary Barnett - President/Barnett Financial Services, Inc. 12/20/2006, 03:57 PM Mr. Ness, I hate to be the bearer of the truth to someone who is obviously hiding from it, but here goes. Hezbollah never took shape or came into existance until 1982 during the Lebanon invasions. Hamas and Al Queida did not come into existence until 1988. As a matter of fact, most so-called modern terrorist organizations are post the America's unconstitutionally interfering in Middle Easter affairs. I guess this blows a couple of holes in your biased opinion. I suggest more study and less hatred if you want to truly understand this current world situation. As an aside, you don't need to cut me any slack, as I have studied history for over 40 years. I also served in the army during Vietnam, and have watched many in my family, including my daughter, go to Iraq. This war is no more warranted than any other we've been in since WW11. Imperialism is imperialism, no matter how you slice it; it's just that simple! Gary Barnett Lewistown, Montana

General's Knowledge Posted by R C - Ra Conteur 12/20/2006, 07:55 PM Discussion seems overly complicated for a board intended to discuss editorial practice and Oversight. What would have helped greatly to begin with is to have had a realistic press that uncovered the flimsy reasons for aggression in the first place. The exercise in Iraq could have been avoided had we diversified our energy sources starting in the 1950s. We will soon have a new crop of electric /alternative fuel vehicles to help defuse the middle east oil. Had we started building that technology 40 years ago - oil, the resource culprit , would have been taken only one seat at the foreign policy table. If you like the General's suggestions here - check out his book "Fixing Intelligence" - it is ahead of its time.

Oil, god or Al Quaida? here's my 3 pics Posted by Fra Halsto - Illustrator Designer 12/21/2006, 05:36 PM George W Bush is not the sharpest tool in the box and his powertrip and holy-God connection is part of the reason USA made (yet another) blunder in their foregin politics. Looking att US-media and advertisement we can see that BIG gasguzzling cars still sell and they use petrol, right. So the third reason USA is losing their son's and angering big parts of our Planet's population is because A-Q feed US-intelligence with stories about Iraq, it was in A-Q interest to lure USA into a costly war that would upset other states in the region, thus creating more material and men for their "cause". as always the one to suffer most are the civilian population. as of going to war against Iran, that must be dumber than Vietnam and Irak combined. only a very unbalanced mind could ignore the numbers of scenarios that this could trigger. We are so many people living on planet Earth that do NOT agree with what Bush & Blair is playing at. (exuse bad English ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1484 caracters left.)

Talk to Iran Posted by Elliott Ferris - 12/22/2006, 03:15 AM The Iranians will talk to us; they want to be seen in the islamic world as legitimate and powerful. It raises their prestige to pretend to bail-out a superpower. If we are really serious about exploring options, we should talk to Iran, and see what they have to offer.

The weakness of strength. Posted by William Miller - 12/23/2006, 08:13 PM I'll leap in and concur with the Six Brutal Truths of Gen. Odom and add the vision of lost opportunity. Destruction of Iraqi forces was our goal, forget the other delusions. Once completed we should have withdrawn all of our military. What was a potent threat, that of an attack by the United States, has been watered down by our impotence in the "insurgency". We gain strength in withdrawal and the capacity to destroy an adversary on the ground. [Reminds me of Sonny Liston against the speed and agility of Muhammad Ali. If Ali had stood toe to toe with Liston he would never have been a champion.] For the moment we are being duped by the Shiites into defending their positions while they attack the Sunnis. Our forces are probably being attacked by both warring parties but the Shiites know that President George "Custer" Bush will not leave the battlefield because of his need to nourish his vanity. Far better that we use our strength, speed and agility when wise then to be caught in a quagmire. It is not defeat to withdraw but having been shown to be impotent weakens the threat of a potential confrontation with the United States. It also removes that potential negotiating threat in our dealings with nations that are not in our favor. Historically great armies have been defeated by weaker armies that withdrew to face their enemies at a later date. Napoleon, Hitler, and even the USSR faced weaker forces that eventually defeated their armies. Bring our troops home, sharpen our swords and learn from the lesson of this ill-advised adventure. The other option is to telegraph to the world that Democracy in the United States occurs only on one day a year after that our leaders are as arrogant as any of the worst.

Amricans are so naive it hurts ! Posted by JF William - 12/26/2006, 07:05 AM "We have become a monster in the eyes of the whole world - a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us... No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we’ll kill you." - Hunter S. Thompson Proof of concept... Dying Regime http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3782299894 ... Be Careful What You Say Part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-654345213 ... Lynching by Laptop Part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2916603344 ... "People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster." - James Baldwin

If only there was compassion Posted by LeRoy Ferguson - Retired journalist 01/04/2007, 03:08 AM A few comments here reveal a terrifying lack of compassion for the world outside. Sure, bomb Iran and probably kills tens -or hundreds- of thousands of Iranians; leave widows, orphans, uncountable number of the maimed. Just numbers to these people.

Effective Strategies in the Middle East Require Comprehension of the Kuran and Its Doctrine. Posted by Louis McCarten - Concerned Citizen 01/24/2007, 02:35 PM The Middle East, lest we forget is dominated by a single document: the Kuran. The people and the governments of the Middle East both abide by the letter of the Kuran, and unless the United States (finally) makes an effort to understand the Kuran and its doctrine, its leaders are NOT going to be able to handle what goes on in this part of the world now or in the future. This is part of why our efforts in Iraq seem to have gone so wrong. Muslims do not behave at a sociological level comparable to other cultures the United States has dealt with in the past; yet it seems to deal with these people as if they are part of the western world's civilization. To date the US government has behaved and made decisions as if the Middle East will react to the US Constitution as though it were the Kuran-- and that is a monumental error. The Middle East is not going to change simply because the new superpower of the day wishes it to. And, the more dangerous the Islamic state, the more serious a mistake the United States makes when it is dealing with it by continuing to ignore the Kuran's teachings. Two basic teachings of the Kuran are 1-)non-Muslims are the enemy of the Muslims and must be waged war againt and 2-)war is deception, which prohibits the honest dealing with the kaffir or non-Muslim at all times; the Islamic teaching of taqiyya requires the Muslims to lie to the non-Muslim and cause him to fail in his dealings witht he Muslim(s). Thus even if the United States military opens itself up to negotiations with Iran or other Islamic states there is no guarantee that the United States would be safe in doing so. In fact it would almost certainly NOT be safe negotiating with any of these states, which are more than likely to use negotiations with the United States to take advantage of it and weaken its position in every way they possibly can arrange to. With regards to the jihad that Islamic states require of their citizens let us not forget that throughout history they themselves have never hesitated to begin wars around the world they believed they could win and the only effective means of stopping jihads has been the massive application of force as in Vienna in 1683 and at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD. A final note for the government of the United States if not the world at large: the Kuran teaches first degree murder; so do not expect the people of the Middle East to display a respect for human life now or in the future. It's just NOT in the cards.

Cmmentary to: Six brutal truths about Iraq Posted by John Smith - writer/Safe America 02/06/2007, 05:59 PM The current crises between the east and west really began in post WWII policies which employed covert agendas under the guise of the Soviet threat. In 1950's, the CIA employed anti-communist tactics in an effort to displace governments and economic growth in third world countries considered an economic threat to the American global corporate infrustructure. In the case of Iran a democratically elected Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (1951-1953), who styled western democracy, was ousted and replaced with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi(Shah). A pro-american policy man who ran the country with dictatorial rule, political prisons and torture, under CIA supervision. By the end of 1954, the US had control of Iran's oil consortium and wide influence over it's policies. The Iranian revolution of the late 70's was the result of decades of foreign rule and oppression which led many groups of opposing ideology to unite against the occupier. Today's Iran is a model molded by incompetant, hegemonic agendas from the west. And Iran has no doubt risen to it's own tune with respect to how it defends it's existence by emulating the most powerful and influencial nations. This would include facilitating a nuclear defense which is also the pretext of broader politico-economic influences in the region. Undoutbedly, if Mosedeq had been left to consolidate his plans to continue the democratization process already under way, Iran would today be a stabilizing ally in the war against terror and a pro-quid partner for US economic policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. If America and what we Americans love is to survive in the decades to come, there needs be an accounting of the last half century and a purging of the insane, self defeating policies which threaten world peacce. Submit a comment - Jump to top of list