« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Remember all that stuff about benchmarks? You know, measurements of progress by the Iraqi government? Well, that was last year.
There's a new catchphrase in town: "Iraqi solutions." And it means that while the Iraqis might have failed to accomplish just about all the goals the U.S. set, that's OK, and you gotta just roll with it and let the Iraqis do their thing.
Here's how it goes, from The Washington Post:
From Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to Army privates and aid workers, officials are expressing their willingness to stand back and help Iraqis develop their own answers. "We try to come up with Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems," said Stephen Fakan, the leader of a provincial reconstruction team with U.S. troops in Fallujah.In many cases -- particularly on the political front -- Iraqi solutions bear little resemblance to the ambitious goals for 2007 that Bush laid out in his speech to the nation last Jan. 10. "To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis," he pledged. "Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year . . . the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."...
To Crocker, the meaning of "Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems" is "blindingly obvious. Iraq has got a government. It's got a system. It's got provincial governments. It's got a military and a police. And it has leaders of all of these things who increasingly take themselves seriously as leaders."
The New York Times noted this reduction in expectations last year, but it didn't have the requisite branding. Now it does. Some, however, are unimpressed with the rollout. The Post quotes a retired British general as saying that this supposed "dawning of reality" is a "cynical use of language" used "to camouflage past errors."
Whether it's realism or cynicism you can decide. An Army official favorably quotes Lawrence of Arabia as proof that this is an old, tried solution: "Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly."
Unfortunately, it's that "tolerable" part that's the sticking point.
Comments (23)
Publius wrote on January 10, 2008 9:47 AM:Vietnamization?
Ed wrote on January 10, 2008 9:50 AM:"Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems"
Like F-16 strikes against suspected Al-Qaeda hang-outs?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akEHxcAy8yUQ&refer=home
What the saying? When in Rome do as the... turn the place into a parking lot.
basher wrote on January 10, 2008 10:03 AM:Do a google search on Vietnam - Rural Pacification, for more great moments in American imperialistic bullshit.
asphyximorphis wrote on January 10, 2008 10:10 AM:"Unfortunately, it's that "tolerable" part that's the sticking point."
More like the sucking point. No matter who is charged with cleaning up the colossal mess at this point, their options all suck, involve the morally corrupt and couldn't give a straight answer if asked whether or not water is wet. Crocker or Patraeus could tell us that Ringling Bros. are going to take over daily operations in Baghdad, it really doesn't matter to us anymore, their credibility is zilch.
Jake H. wrote on January 10, 2008 10:14 AM:One of the worst developments of recent years is the discovery by neocons and their Very Serious Enablers that they can say and promise absolutely anything they want without ever being held accountable in any form or fashion.
Just name some month that seems appropriately far away, lean back, and relax. The date will roll around, promises unfulfilled, maybe a couple ambitious journalists will try to point that out, but it won't matter. Just reboot for another six months, or a year, or whatever. There will always be a critical mass of Very Serious People who will say we need to give Our Troops One More Chance To Succeed In Iraq. It's always one more.
When your real goal is simply to keep the war going, it's pretty easy to succeed, given how cowed Congress and the media have become. Just keep stalling. No one will do anything about it.
bugs wrote on January 10, 2008 10:15 AM:To Crocker, the meaning of "Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems" is "blindingly obvious. Iraq has got a government. It's got a system. It's got provincial governments. It's got a military and a police. And it has leaders of all of these things who increasingly take themselves seriously as leaders."
In other words, "what Saddam said". Five years later and we're back to doing things they way they were done before we started?
Mandrake wrote on January 10, 2008 10:27 AM:Iraqi Solutions? Like this one...?
WaPo:
Golgi wrote on January 10, 2008 10:49 AM:FORWARD OPERATING BASE NORMANDY, Iraq, Jan. 10 -- The explosion of a booby-trapped house killed six American soldiers on Wednesday during an offensive against Sunni insurgents in Diyala province, making it the deadliest day for U.S. troops in Iraq since November.
So I guess this means that "The Surge Worked!" crowd has sobered up and realized that they only got a free pass on account of the distracting Petraeus/Betrayus advertisement.
People are starting to remember there's a war over there, and we're still no closer to leaving than we were before the surge.
Back to reality, kids.
buckheaddad wrote on January 10, 2008 11:09 AM:Wellllllllllllllllllllllll, just think . . . . it's not 4 (repeat "4") major airfield complexes in IRAQ, there are a total of 11 (repeat "11") MONSTER MILITARY COMPLEXES BEING CONSTRUCTED.
The poor dumb American Public is more worried about whether Hillary is shedding tears . . . . or that two-faced jackass would be Christian minister Huckabee is going to hold out again old two faced McCain . . .
FOLKS. . .we're getting exactly what the majority in the country want. ANOTHER GOOD SCREWING FROM THE POLITICIANS AND PREACHERS.
MrMonday wrote on January 10, 2008 11:26 AM:"When your real goal is simply to keep the war going, it's pretty easy to succeed, given how cowed Congress and the media have become. Just keep stalling. No one will do anything about it."
-I agree with Jake. What would you (or anyone who feels the same way) say is the first step you (or I) could take to do something about ending the war?
Dale wrote on January 10, 2008 12:03 PM:"...Iraq has got a government. It's got a system. It's got provincial governments. It's got a military and a police. And it has leaders of all of these things who increasingly take themselves seriously as leaders."
Excellent, they have a military and police, so we can bring our people home, no?
Or when he said they have a military and police, did he mean us? If so, then we are contractors and should be paid for our services, rather than the US taxpayer paying for the "privilege" to put our military's lives on the line for some "Iraqi solution."
Billy Pilgrim wrote on January 10, 2008 12:10 PM:MrMonday,
Here's a start. Talk to your kids. Tell them to stop offering themselves as cannon fodder. You can't conduct a war if no one shows up.
moondancer wrote on January 10, 2008 12:47 PM:Angling towards an October surprise in case the GOP candidate is viable?
BobT wrote on January 10, 2008 12:53 PM:Even the nitwit in chief sees how hopeless his position is. The escalation failed, bribes are working, but how long will that last. The lid is blowing off as we speak. There is no political solution with the current Iraqi government. None. They are forced to go after lost territory, which means a big jump in US casualties. It never ends, does it George?
Billy Pilgrim made me think:
The war is 5 years old now. All of the impressionable Iraqi 7 to 9-year-olds whose precious, young lives were disrupted by the invasion are now old enough to serve which ever master can recruit them. Despite the percieved lull in violence, there are likely plenty of recruits to sustain the fight on the Iraqi side.
Mark F. wrote on January 10, 2008 1:42 PM:In some ways this could be seen as an encouraging development. It could mean that the administration is finally coming to terms with the fact that they will ultimately have very little to do with the eventual outcome in Iraq. On the other hand, it could simply mean that Big Oil and the other corporate interests have signaled that they've safely secured their deals and their influence and the political solutions are now moot. Is an AT&T call center in Baghdad on the horizon?
tballou wrote on January 10, 2008 1:48 PM:Finally a bit of sanity coming out of our pointless occupation of Iraq! How novel - letting the adults over there figure this out for themselves! Who would have ever thought that might work?
Roberta wrote on January 10, 2008 2:02 PM:MrMonday,
Billy Pilgrim's suggestion is a good one, but I have another:
Be very, very vocal about insisting that you will not vote for any candidate for
the presidency, House, or Senate who will not commit to making our exit from Iraq the first order of business from the day they take office.
Hillary Clinton said something I hope she meant in her victory speech in NH. She said that in listening to the people of New Hampshire she found her own voice. This indicates that what these people said to her has had some effect on how she is approaching this presidential candidacy.
Okay, then the voices that ALL candidates need to hear are those that tell them over and over that NOTHING in this country can be put on a progressive track--to improve education, achieve health care for all, or keep the gap between the rich and the rest from widening--until the lives and money being spent in Iraq are put back into this country.
Getting out of Iraq will pave the way for the people's reclaiming their influence on politicians from the corporations that help to perpetuate the war.
In addition, electing candidates that respond to the will of the majority of Americans--who want an end to our involvement in Iraq--will be a warning to those already in office (and who would like very much to be reelected, please) that they'd better pay attention to what their actual constituents want rather than what their corporate donors want.
I'm not saying that any of these results will be quick or easy. As Edwards has pointed out, the corporations are not going to give up their influence without a fight. But by forcing the candidates for 2008 to commit to withdrawing American military and government-contracted services from Iraq, and only electing those who make this commitment, an immediate result will be a strong, unclouded ray of hope that few of us seem to feel is possible today.
It's an essential first step to take.
powell wrote on January 10, 2008 3:06 PM:I thought Saddam was an Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem.
markg8 wrote on January 10, 2008 5:00 PM:You don't want to see what the Iraqi solution will be after we've armed both sides to the teeth and
pwoxby wrote on January 10, 2008 7:28 PM:the bribes stop. Bush knows that and it's why he's doing it.
Bush's 'strategery' on the American people has been to carpet bomb them with slogans. If that fails, maybe he'll consider something else. Maybe he'll consider telling the truth. Maybe ... nah!
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:48 PM:Considering that the last charge against SH was that he was a dictator troubling Iraqis, why was it so difficult to let the Iraqis find an Iraqi solution then?
MrMonday wrote on January 14, 2008 11:21 AM:To Roberta and Billy Pilgrim,
First: Sorry for the late reply (who knows if anyone will read this post at this point)
Second:Thank you for the your replies.
I think talking to kids and trying to educate them on how to think for - and stand up for - themselves is of utmost importance for every issue in the world.
Also, voting would in turn should be a result of your critical thinking on matters that require representation.
Seeing as I do not have kids at my age, I will follow the latter advice at this time:)
heh wrote on January 23, 2008 11:15 AM:well, so much for American democracy that how many people screamed prior to the invasion to say the occupation and increasing colonization by the US into a sovereign nation wasn't going to work?Weren't they listening when the experts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said this all along: the Middle East can't be converted to US style democracy. They're not a nation of laws based on a constitution, but of religious dogma. Faith is their logic.