I couldn't have said it better myself, and they are the words of General Odom, ret., who now speaks out clearly in the pages of WAPO.
To expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning.
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and their sock-puppet Bush committed a strategic blunder of historic and catastrophic dimensions in Iraq. Sen. John Warner will regret, to his dying day, that he turned tail on his own "non-binding" resolution on the war. The entire thinking behind the illegal assault on Iraq was flawed, built on suppositions and on actual and deliberate denial of fact.
More.
As the devastating proportions of the calamity about to befall the West in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes evident, we will also have to bring the culpable to justice.
Noam Chomsky writes as follows in today's The Independent:
US policy should be that of all aggressors: (1) pay reparations; (2) attend to the will of the victims; (3) hold the guilty parties accountable, in accord with the Nuremberg principles, the UN Charter, and other international instruments.
A more practical proposal is to work to change the domestic society and culture substantially enough so that what should be done can at least become a topic for discussion. That is a large task, not only on this issue, though I think élite opposition is far more ferocious than that of the general public.
He is withering (as is his bent) in his depiction of US goals in the region. And states the obvious - the US can't possibly be contemplating withdrawal, or a solution involving neighbouring states, as long as it is building its largest embassy complex ever in Baghdad.
Sovereignty in Iraq might well lead to a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's petroleum resources and independent of the US, undermining a primary goal of US foreign policy since it became the world-dominant power after the Second World War. Worse yet, though the US can intimidate Europe, it cannot intimidate China, which blithely goes its own way, even in Saudi Arabia, the jewel in the crown - the primary reason why China is considered a leading threat. An independent energy bloc in the Gulf area is likely to link up with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council, with Russia (which has its own huge resources) as an integral part, and with the Central Asian states (already members), possibly India. Iran is already associated with them, and a Shia-dominated bloc in the Arab states might well go along. All of that would be a nightmare for US planners and their Western allies.
General Odom points out the same - and it is against this disastrous prospect that we must understand the "hoping against hope" proposals coming from Cheney, Blair and Bush as they go for yet another roll of the dice in the casino of their own making.
Here is General Odom on the four myths presently paralyzing legislators in Washington:
- We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.
- We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.
- We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.
- We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?
Indeed, has anyone asked the troops?
They are handy as backdrops for this truant president, and clearly also as IED fodder for an occupation that was all about taking care of Cheney's buddies, and had little concern for the troops themselves.
The US has lost a war that was never winnable in Iraq. Withdrawal is the only option, as otherwise the carnage will grow and quite possibly spread to the entire Gulf region.
In their desperation, fully aware of the peril in which they have placed the West, Cheney and Bush are now getting ready for a roll of the dice where they stake everything. They have already begun the Black PsyOps that are supposed to deliver a rationale for attacking Iran -- it is time that Congress does its duty and retires the worst president in US history, and his enabler, the criminally insane and frighteningly delusional Cheney.
Interestingly, it is Chomsky who delivers the Realpolitik perspective that deluded Cheney as he thought Chalabi would prove able to keep the Shi'ites from turning to Iran:
A sovereign Iraq, partially democratic, could well be a disaster for US planners. With a Shia majority, it is likely to continue improving relations with Iran. There is a Shia population right across the border in Saudi Arabia, bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny. Any step towards sovereignty in Iraq encourages activism there for human rights and a degree of autonomy - and that happens to be where most of Saudi oil is.
I consider Bush and Cheney to be "Bloom & Byalystock" of an IRL production of The Producers - though while the fictional characters intentionally sought to achieve failure, and ended up with an unwanted success, the real life (oil) producers turn everything they touch into death, disaster and ignominy - while believing success is waiting "just around the next corner."
Hearing Cheney, a disgraceful draft dodger, speaking of the need for the US not to lose its stomach for the fight, is beyond ludicrous.
How long will the US continue to accept that it is on its way to becoming the Pariah nation of the world?
I know that Markos and others, for reasons of political expediency, have argued against impeachment of the war criminals in this administration -- but this is quickly going beyond what is politically expedient and towards urgent necessity.