IRAQ

The Protection Business

Thousands of Iraqis are joining forces with American troops to drive out insurgents. What it's costing the U.S.—and why it could become even more expensive in the years ahead.

By Lennox Samuels | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Jan 11, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 3:04:46 AM

Comment: Page 1 of 8

Before the war in Iraq started, and after my own research, I determined that we would not find 400 tons of anthrax or 400 tons of VX gas or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nor would we find Al-Qaeda in Iraq of such a sufficient nexus to have considered them a threat to us. There was never any credible evidence put forth to support this military action. I could provide a laundry list of examples, but that is for another time, Suffice it to say, there was just as much evidence contravening any evidence supporting the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction as there was supposedly the truthful kind. Who in America had first-hand knowledge of whether Saddam had WMD? When people suggest that one needs to be in Iraq to fully know what is going on there, I always bring up the fact that no American was over there to find out if Saddam had WMD, except for Scott Ritter, who was a U.N. weapons inspector and went on untold inspections. He stated, prior to the war, that Saddam had no WMD. Did every American rely upon the words of the only American that had been over there to determine whether Saddam had WMD? The answer is a resounding: no. Why not?

Certainly, relying upon the information from the Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi was not the appropriate thing to do. I mean, according to what I have read, and in my opinion, if you relied upon the information from the Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi then you might as well have been relying upon evidence given to us by the Iranians. The same people who are providing IED???s to Iraqis that are killing our great soldiers in Iraq. Furthermore, did not the country of Jordan convict Chalabi, in abstentia, for embezzling money from the people and banks of Jordan? So, an American would rely upon the word of Chalabi and not the word of an American, who had first-hand knowledge regarding the potentiality of Saddam having WMD? There is a recent book about Chalabi on the bookshelves that should be read, particularly by those of you who supported the war in Iraq. It will shed some light on some things that I understood before the war was commenced. Read it. It is enlightening.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 3:03:41 AM

Comment: Sometimes we rely upon the words of those people who have first-hand knowledge, when one cannot be there. In other words, we can choose whose words we rely upon. The final arbitrator is the correctness of that decision. Judgment, objectivity and critical thinking are at a premium. Significant evidence was put forth prior to this war that was ill gotten from self-interested parties and that should not have been relied upon in the first place, but was, because it furthered an agenda. Be that as it may, it was incumbent upon journalists to dig further than what was just stated by those in power and enter the bowels of institutions to find objective information. Why such digging was not performed by the major, media outlets, prior to this war, will be answered some day more fully; Bill Moyers from PBS has done a good job of it so far. But there were those like Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight-Ridder newspapers at the time that did their jobs. I give kudos to those journalists, including the latter ones, for not being bullied and sullied into believing that agenda. I read their material and thank them for their persistence and objectivity.

Page 2 of 8

I also hypothesized after doing my own research prior to this war, and I think accurately, that in order to properly support our fine troops, you would need to have had a ratio of 20,000 troops per 1 million people to secure this type of country, adequately. Without that ratio in Iraq, you cannot adequately say that you are supporting the troops. You are leaving them with the inability to provide security for, let us say, reconstruction or to protect their selves from harm and injury, which I think, they deservedly should have such protection. Empirical data does not lie. Therefore, based on that, and with Iraq having a population of 25 million, we would have needed roughly 500,000 troops in Iraq, in order to have adequately secured that country. Under the circumstances, I commend our troops for doing a great job based on having only half of the resources to secure the country adequately. I have supported them throughout this military action. But I still do not understand why it took 3 years to fully equip our armored vehicles? I was in favor of giving the troops the necessary equipment to better defend themselves, at all costs. I cannot imagine how anyone who says that they fully support the troops would not have made implementation of that, one of its highest priorities. Furthermore, I did not want to dismiss the article that prompted my response. I give kudos to that article, too.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 3:01:42 AM

Comment: Page 2 of 8

Part of the reason why I think this failure to equip our armored vehicles happened was because it would have cost an additional $10 billion. This Bush Administration surely must not have liked to have that additional expense hit our books during their term, even if capitalized. It should have been a top priority and could have been made one by the President???s magic wand; however, it was not. Yes, Iranians are probably sending IED material to Iraq, and yes, that is a bad proposition for our troops. That is why I supported the equipping of our armored vehicles with additional armor, while this Bush Administration seemed to turn a blind-eye to the problem. But are these IED???s preventing the Iraqi government from reconciling and thus, keeping us in Iraq? No. But it is these and other strategic missteps that this Bush Administration brought us to, and that Presidential candidates like John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the likes of Senator Chuck Hagel, have acknowledged, that emphasize my point.

The history of Iraq suggests that it is an artificial country made up of various ethnic and religious sects held together by a ruthless dictator. A book that came out prior to the war and was worth reading, which I did, was Paris 1919. The book, written by Margaret McMillan, dealt with the Treaty of Versailles. However, it also provided a fantastic description of how Iraq was formulated and the potential destructive nature that this type of country could have if it ever disintegrated. For instance, like Yugoslavia under Tito, once the dictator is deposed, the different ethnic and religious sects tend to partake in civil war to gain power and to settle old scores. In Iraq???s case, those repressed will ethnically cleanse their areas to protect themselves from future oppression. We needed that troop level described above to ensure a better chance in having a smoother transition from dictatorship to a functioning society and in allowing the Iraq people to decide how they would govern themselves.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 3:00:17 AM

Comment: Page 3 of 8

It has been reported that at around the time of the start of the war, in late March/early April 2003, the moderates in Iran offered an olive branch, called the Grand Bargain, to us and placed certain items on the table for discussion, including recognition of Israel as a country, reducing their involvement in worldwide terrorism and helping to provide a smoother transition in Iraq. Whether they could have been believed or not would have been shown in due time; the proof would have been in the pudding. But these were the moderates of the country and once you fail to talk with them, it just marginalizes them. The moderates are the people we want to use to topple the current heads of this regime in Iran. Topple this current regime in Iran and there would have been less of a chance of IED???s in Iraq, but more importantly, less U.S. troop???s lives lost and less of a threat to Israel. And furthermore, it may have prevented the Iranians from changing from the U.S. dollar to the euro, as the denomination to purchase their oil. Since Iran has a high level of oil reserves, the currency that is used to purchase this oil can be made in a specific currency making it the currency of choice, so to speak. The U.S. dollar is no longer becoming the currency of choice and thus, inflationary pressure occurs as a result of too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. Because its purchasing power is eroding, people and countries sell dollars for gold and other currencies to try to protect their surpluses from continued erosion. Dollars flood the market. The moral hazard has been crossed. No one should argue in front of me that we are a free market, capitalist economy. We are not. Is not it, survival of the fittest? If we were, I would be a millionaire by now. Bear Stearns is my case example. Once the Feds stepped in, need I say more? No Reaganite would step into my argument. I am a true fiscal conservative. Res ipsa loquitur.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 2:59:14 AM

Comment: Page 4 of 8

On March 20, 2006, Iran changed the denomination from our U.S. dollar to the euro. On March 23, 2006, the Feds decided to no longer print the M3 report anymore. Some believe that it is a report that shows the total money supply of U. S. dollars in the world. Its printing was stopped 3 days after the Iranians made their change. The report provides a window into the money being printed from helicopters, so to speak. Some people suspect that is it a way for the Feds to purchase and re-purchase treasuries on the open market, in order to manipulate the money supply, economy, stock and bond markets. Based on that report and extrapolations of it, some people further suggest that the supply of U.S. dollars in the world as printed by our own Federal Reserve has jumped 15% over the course of a couple of years. This increase in the number of U.S. dollars causes inflation and ultimately, a devaluation of it. Other countries reduce their intake of U.S dollars because it has less value. Ultimately, by countries changing their denomination peg and not using the U.S. dollar, the value of the U.S. dollar is further eroded. Countries do not come to the U.S. to purchase our stocks, bonds, goods or services because their reserves contain euros or yen rather than U.S dollars and thus, there are fewer vehicles available to attract foreign investment into this country and for us to be able to pay or fund our deficits.

Page 4 of 8

Iraq made the change of pegging their currency from the U.S dollar to the euro in November of 2000. Other countries have done the same or have talked about it. Kuwait did it in May of 2007 by pegging it to a basket of currencies rather than just the U.S. dollar. Kuwait, who is a member Gulf Cooperation Council, hopes to switch fully to the euro as their peg in 2010. The other six members include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. By the way, Iran has a population of roughly 50 million people. Again, Iraq has a population of roughly 25 million people. That means, according to my calculations, it would require close to 1 million troops and close to $2 trillion (operationally only) to invade and secure Iran for a six-year period, if you want to make sure we do not do what we did in Iraq. That is roughly how much it would cost to promulgate a third front war? More spending of U.S. dollars to open a third front war would further erode the purchasing power of our currency.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 2:57:30 AM

Comment: Page 4 of 8

There are several reasons why the surge is working in my opinion. One reason is because we have more troops on the ground, which my paragraph above suggests should have been done in the first place, but I will further address this below. Another reason, and I think the main reason, is because we are paying money and cutting deals with Iraqis for various reasons: to employ them to fight Al-Qaeda, to stop fighting each other and to rebuild their country. However, regarding the latter, according to most GAO reports (an independent body that works for the American people), much of the construction has been faulty and inadequate, some of the money has not been spent and still further, other monies have been embezzled. This is my money by the way. But spending more of the taxpayer???s money in excess of what it can afford or, what most people like calling debt, does not matter I suppose to some people. It does to me. To cut taxes and then, to increase the debt by $4 trillion during an eight year period is absurd; other than, if one is trying to bleed the pig, which I think this administration may be trying to do, in order to force people into making choices. It would not be politically feasible to cut military spending (even though we should); so, you are left with cutting entitlements and other expenses. I am no baby boomer; but I know one thing, no baby boomer is going to want their entitlements cut. Cut the generations??? entitlements behind us, but not ours, even though we created this debt. Reminds me of when I hear someone say that they supported the war in Vietnam, but did not fight in it and was of age at the time, and still says they are more patriotic than anyone else. It was others that fought, not them. I think it is disingenuous to say that you are more patriotic than anyone else and that you supported the war in Vietnam, but in fact, did not volunteer to fight for America, alongside Americans, when the opportunity presented itself.

Another reason why the surge is working is because parts of the country and specific cities are being partitioned in accordance with their ethnic and/or religious backgrounds. The Shias are on this side of the line, while the Sunnis are on that side of the line. As I predicted prior to the commencement of this war, there was a 60% chance that the country would be artificially partitioned or would need to be in the end. All anyone had to do was to read Paris 1919 or remember what happened in Yugoslavia after Tito died to understand this. A fourth reason may be because the candle has burned out, temporarily. People get tired of fighting.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 2:55:51 AM

Comment: Page 5 of 8

And the last reason the surge is working is because the Shias, including Mugtada Al-Sadr, have agreed to a cease-fire, for whatever reason. Maybe, this Shias faction wised-up because the last time the Shias faction rose up against colonial rule was in 1920 against the British. If I am not mistaken, the British then gave power to govern the country over to the Sunnis, after the Shias revolted. Maybe, deals were cut with money and so called reconstruction dollars between the U.S., the Sunnis and Al-Sadr. Even a CNN reporter, Michael Ware, was reporting that prior to the surge and the summer of 2007 that deals were being cut. I am no expert on Iraq history nor do I feel comfortable in totally understanding the ethnic, religious and sectarian components of this artificial country, even after what I read about prior to the war. But that is my point exactly. Everyone in the United States who supported the war thought that we would be there only one year; we would be seen as liberators; there would be no civil war; and only needed half of the amount of troops because it would be easy. What did they know? I knew enough to know that it is more complex than a spider web or determining the DNA of a human gene, plagued by changing political support and posturing, and fighting amongst factional ethnic and religious sects. Did Chalabi work for the Iranians? Was the Iraqi National Congress infiltrated by Iran? Did Chalabi funnel information given to him by the Iranians to prod us into going into war to remove their archenemy? Is Iran backing Al-Sadr or are they hedging their bets with Maliki? Why did an explosion occur in a mosque in southern Iran near the Iraqi border? Who killed one of Al-Sadr clerics? Is Al-Sadr out of favor with Iran or not, or is he Iran???s puppet? Without U.S in the way, could Al-Sadr topple the Maliki government and gain control of the Iraqi government?
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 2:53:37 AM

Comment: Page 5 of 8

As I stated prior to the war, once one opens Iraq through these means, what will happen is it will become another place for Al-Qaeda to recruit and work out of (just like in most Sunni-dominated, Middle Eastern countries) and will provide a haven for Iranian influence. Iran will have a greater bargaining position when it comes time to negotiate with them over their nuclear program. In other words, what we do not want to happen will become reality. It made a hardened Iran much stronger in the region and provided Al-Qaeda with another arena to recruit from the Sunni population. Iran then becomes a bigger threat to Israel, which is something I think we did not want to happen. Furthermore, now we have to focus on two fronts and the other one has not even been adequately secured. (Both Napoleon and Hitler opened a two front war, which did not end quite victorious for them. So a good military strategy is: no need to open a two front war, if you do not have to.) Afghanistan has a population of roughly 30 million people. That means we needed to have 600,000 troops in that region to adequately secure it. And why we did not have 500,000 troops in Iraq and 600,000 in Afghanistan; the cost, maybe? We would have needed a draft, maybe?

According to my own estimates, prior to the war, the burn rate for the war in Iraq was going to be roughly $6 billion a month based on having roughly 200,000, during the first three years we were there. That meant we were going to spend, without equipment replacement and medical costs, $216 billion after three years, which is close to what we spent. Two institutions have estimated that the war in Iraq alone is going to cost us over a $1 trillion, including operational, equipment replacement and medical costs, over a 20-year period. That is based on using only half of the amount of troops that we should have used in the first place. I read prior to the war that it costs us $20 billion a year to place sanctions on Saddam. If Saddam had stayed in office for 30 years, then that would mean it would have cost us $600 billion. Ultimately, as a result of all of this, we would have needed a draft to bring our depleted military the additional troops necessary to secure these countries properly. No one would have supported the draft and thus, probably nobody would have supported the war in Iraq, if truthfully told originally that we would need 500,000 troops and it would cost us close to $1 trillion in operational costs only, to defeat Saddam and secure the country for a six-year period. Oh, by the way, there is no precedent in U.S history that would suggest that an invasion of this magnitude and occupation would only last one-year as this Bush Administration said it would. Forget about just Japan, Germany and Korea; but look at Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Vietnam and the Philippines. We were in these countries or still in them for 15 years or more.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 2:51:01 AM

Comment: Page 6 of 8
Irrespective of whether one has been to Iraq or not, I do expect my leaders in business, in government and in the media to have a better level of foresight and ability to critically think than what is presently being exhibited. We all make mistakes, and I am not immune from mistakes, but this one seemed to defy logic and common sense. I have read where former Fed Chairman Greenspan???s hypothesized and told President Bush prior to the war that with Saddam in power and had gotten control of the Straits of Hormuz, the price of oil would cost $120 (I wrote this oil was $100 a barrel). First off, Iraq had a navy sufficient to fend off any retaliation if attempting to control the Straits of Hormuz? I would have loved to have seen a video of that naval battle between Iraq???s naval force and any other countries naval force that would have joined together to re-take the Straits. It would have been a short video. Wouldn???t it been much less expensive to defeat a practically non-existent naval force than to have invaded Iraq? I assumed, and correctly, he did not have WMD so he would have to use a navy, which was practically non-existent during that period of time, to try to take the Straits. Didn???t we have Saddam well contained before the war? How could he have taken the Straits; with what? Second off, it did not matter whether Saddam was in power in Iraq or not. Oil was going to be at $100 a barrel within a year anyway and will probably be $120 a barrel in a couple of years due to the economies of BRIC (the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China), inflation (more demand and while supply remains the same) and the devaluing of the U.S dollar. Even still, if it would have gone up to $120 with Saddam in power, then there is another reason why we should not have done it alone; since the entire world benefits from this reduction, why should the world not help foot the bill? Again, the price of a barrel of oil was already increasing by then anyway. Furthermore, regardless of whether you believe that Saudi Arabia does not have the amount of reserves they say they have, which I believe quite possible they do not, my question is why are we sending roughly $200 billion a year of our hard earned money overseas to purchase oil (I have read where between 1970 to 2000, we have sent anywhere between $5 trillion to $13 trillion to foreign countries for oil), when we should have been investing the trillion dollars we are going to spend on Iraq to develop renewable sources of energy or develop thorium power to fuel our nuclear plants or master the technique to capture CO2 emissions from our coal plants. By keeping our money here, we can better shore-up our financial situation. More technological advancements mean greater productivity gains, less inflation and the reduction of our deficits. These were certainly opportunities foregone.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 2:49:37 AM

Comment: Page 6 of 8

Deficits do matter, as the current financial crisis appears to support that notion; whether it be government, business or personally. I think it would have been a more prudent thing to move away from our reliance on oil by investing in alternative energy technologies, rather than to have gone into Iraq to try to solve the world???s energy crisis of $100 barrel of oil. For me, providing subsidies to the ethanol industry at the same time as invading Iraq to get its oil onto the market to decrease that barrel price also did not make any logical sense. I understand that other than silver, petroleum is used in a lot of what is made; but, if a barrel of oil is going to go up to $120 with or without Saddam in power, then we just should have foregone the invasion and concentrated on perfecting alternative energy sources, which leads me to this. Does it make any sense to subsidize an already heavily-subsidized business that is already reaping the benefits of an increase in prices? And talk about throwing money from helicopters. This seems to me to be throwing more fuel on top of that fire. As the price of food goes even higher because of the price of oil climbs higher, we are providing more financial support to ethanol-related entities, which causes the price of corn to increase further at the supermarket. I would not be surprised to see the countries of the world get together and try to bring down the cost of food world-wide or the value of the U.S. dollar, similar to what the G-7 did as a part of Plaza Agreement of 1985 (countries coming together to try to affect the world???s economic system through their central banks). More government intervention in free market economies; is that what we really need more of right now?
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 2:41:20 AM

Comment: Page 7 of 8

Here in the U.S., I think the State of California, the State of New Jersey, the State of New York and the City of New York will be the telltale sign of things to come for government and its citizenry. A combination of things probably will need to be done and we will see how these leaders handle it. Taxes and user fees will need to be raised and expenses will need to be cut. Unfunded liability that has been promised will need to be rescinded because I do not think these governmental entities can wait to see if our lower dollar attracts substantial infusions of capital from foreign countries and companies or we are able to grow out of our financial predicament or some unexpected event happens. I also think our financial institutions will be seeking further infusions of capital from sovereign wealth groups, like they already have, which entails the selling of their assets, just to stay alive; or, the Feds will have to step in to, for all intense and purposes, and purchase more bad debt. President Bush has already done this without much fanfare, but what and see when the true conservatives, which I am not, get a whiff of this one. Or maybe, just maybe, we will formulate a new currency with Mexico and Canada that will save us financially, but we will lose our financial identity or sovereignty in the meantime. Or China will devalue their currency. Currently, the U.S. is being re-aligned due to the BRIC countries, supply and demand and the devaluing of the U.S. dollar. We just do not have the financial strength, anymore. Just like the British after WWII. The key is never military strength because in the end, that will only draw resources from the private sector, just like the Federal Reserve Bank directing all of the people???s money to Wall Street to sure-up their balance sheets. Not a good then when they will not lend to the consumer and businesses because the money is being re-directing to Wall Street. Boy does this reek of more government intervention in the marketplace of ideas. Great Britian was heavily in debt after WWII. Their empire was vast and their military strength still strong. It was their balance sheet that was the problem. I read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy years ago. The key to Great Britian???s detriment was its reliance on international economies to finance their debt and the propping-up of the expansion of other countries. Sound familiar?
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 2:36:49 AM

Comment: Page 8 of 8

I believe I heard Karl Rove the other day state that if we get out of Iraq, a barrel of oil would be $200 today because the Iranians would control it or Al-Quaeda would. So, we went to war because of oil? And also, the thing that we wanted to prevent when we actually went into Iraq, we have caused; a further increase in oil prices? What is going to happen when a barrel of oil gets to $200 and we are still in Iraq? Doesn???t OPEC control the production of oil in the Middle East and is not Iraq and Iran members of OPEC? That is why I stated before the war, we should not invade Iraq. That the reasons for the invasion were the following: for geopolitical reasons, for oil, to get a foothold and another base in the region and to take out a player that we could in the Middle East. It was for all of the reasons not stated, as I like to state. This is and was an untenable policy, both from a fiscal and strategic perspective. For those to argue now that we need to stay in Iraq because we need to defeat Al-Quaeda is reprehensible. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Al-Quaeda will be in Iraq whether we are there or not. Iraq has a Sunni population and just like Saudia Arabia and Egypt have connections with Al-Quaeda. Iran is a neighbor of Iraq and will have influence with Iraq because of its geographic proximity and historical ties with Shias of Iraq dating back to before the existence of our United States. By leaving, a President???s legacy is damaged, but by staying, we incur trillions of dollars in expense, let alone more deaths of U.S. soldiers, a much stronger Iran, a more vulnerable Israel and a reduction in our negotiating position as our power gets diminished; partly because of oil? A commodity we will need to spend billions of dollars in order to reduce our reliance upon? That is not fiscal conservatism, it is fiscal irresponsibility. And people followed this? No Christian should; Jesus would not have. There is so much more I could say, but I will refrain from quoting, free market experts, Thomas Paine and John Locke. Everyone will be singing to the choir, unless something else develops.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 1:59:40 AM

Comment: I am the egg man
We are the egg men
I am the walrus
Coo coo ca choo
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 1:59:27 AM

Comment: I am the egg man
We are the egg men
I am the walrus
Coo coo ca choo
Posted By: JohnGaltlaketahoe @ 03/26/2008 9:20:43 PM

Comment: No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. No mobile biological weapons labs were found. Iraq did not seek to acquire yellowcake uranium. The aluminum tubes were not sultable for nuclear weapons. The lead hi-jacker in the events of 9/11 did not meet with Iraqi intelligence. Iraq did not provide chemical weapons training to Al-Qaeda. There was no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Hussein nor Iraq was involved in the events of 9/11.

One million Iraqi citizens have died. 2 million have been displaced. Four thousand US soldiers have died. 100,000 have been wounded physically and mentally.

Only the oil remains. The conflicts of interest inherent in this Bush Administration are currently confiscating the natural resources of Iraq.

Should this entire Executive Branch he hung? Should there simply be another election and a new President to continue this nightmare? Only the American electorate can decide what treason and insurrection against the American electorate means.

But make no mistake....this Bush Administration used lies and innuendo to place the US military into Iraq.
Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 01/23/2008 3:55:45 AM

Comment: The person who thought that money can bring peace in Iraq - in particular employing the CLCs is rather short sighted. The CLCs are not in alliance with anybody. They are only loyal to themselves.They are just two headed snakes. They just want money and are willing to do anything for money. They will switch sides whenever necessary to save their own skins. Just imagine when the money stops flowing. The situation will get more complicated and towards the end the US army will have to face more enemies in so many forms until it is difficult to distinguish between friend and enemy.
Posted By: thuctho @ 01/19/2008 5:51:38 AM

Comment: Bush should have learned from Russia's battling the Chechens. The insurgents have been doing IEDs, snipers, VBIEDs, ambushes, assassinations, etc. to the Russian since 1990s. Rumfeld's "we go to war with the army we have not the army we want." But we invaded Iraq, we should prepared the army we want before launching an invasion.
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 01/19/2008 4:05:36 AM

Comment: This is why I think the media has performed an horrific job in analyzing the war in Iraqi. Forget about their reckless and inaccurate coverage leading up to the war, which already has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there has been a total failure of any critical analysis regarding the so-called "surge". This is self-evident by this article.

The media has failed again to report an accurate nexus between why the Bush Administration has been pushing for the surge in the first place and the resultant facts or the success of it. First off, the purpose of the surge was to provide an opportunity for the Iraqis to reconcile their political differences. Its purpose, according to the Bush Administration , was to provide an opportunity for political resolution between the Iraqi people. This certainly has not happened, which is something I predicted prior to the commencement of the war.

What ethnic or political group, who has been repressed for over 20 years and who is in the majority, will all of a sudden, after gaining power through democratically-elected means, relinquish power and will allow those that have repressed them from gaining any power? Of course, the repressed group will prevent the former oppressors from gaining any advantage. Such political reconciliation would never place within one year as the Bush Administration led us to believe it would, prior to the war, according to Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfled and Paul Wolfowitz.

Secondly, the media has failed time and time again to show that the main reason why the surge has worked. The surge has mainly worked because the American public is basically "paying-off" people in Iraq to not fight and to re-direct their focus onto other political groups. The question becomes: when we stop paying this group called the Awakening Council, what will happen to their focus? Where will they re-direct it?

And lastly, people argue that the Bush Administration will be vindicated in the end. History will vindicate them. My argument against that is two-fold. First, if the Bush Administration had utlilized a more conciliatory angle with Iran, when Iran offered an olive tree back in 2003, things certainly who have been different in terms of what we would have been able to accomplish in the end with Iraq. Also, by allowing natural circumstances to remove Saddam from power, Iraq would have gone through the same progession that they are going through now and would be in the same predicament no matter whether we went into Iraq or not. In other words, I agree. The Bush Administration will be vindicated no matter what happens because 50 years from now, irrespective of whether we would have invaded Iraq or not, Iraq would have to go through the same problems as they are going through now.
- Posted By: faminchin @ 01/22/2008 21:55:21
  
  Comment: PS: You moron, it's Iran that has supplied the majority of explosives that have been killing our troops! And you think we should sit down and talk with them? They extend an olive branch, at the same time they are killing our troops.....and you want to blame Bush?
  
  Pull your head out of that donkey's butt!
- Posted By: faminchin @ 01/22/2008 21:52:45
  
  Comment: Bill, you obviously have your head stuck up a donkey's azz, incapable of an objective view on current events! I can tell from you post that you have not been to Iraq to see for yourself what is happening there. Instead you depend on Nancy, Harry, and Osama to give you talking points.
  
  I will certainly agree that our media has done a horrible job of reporting the facts, but not as you say. They have failed to tell the American people what is actually happening in Iraq.
  
  Just as with this article, they want us to believe that Iraqi's are joining the fight with us against extremist, not because of their family members that have been murdered by them, not because of the widely know story in Iraq of how Al Qaeda baked 10 year old children in an oven and served them to their parents on a plater with fruit stuffed in their mouth, not because of their friends and family being beheaded by terrorist.....oh no...none of that has any effect on Iraqi's........they are with us just because of the money. Not because they long to be free, not because they see our troops building hospitals, schools, and repairing instructure, providing them with drinking water...nooo...none of that has anything to do with Iraqi's joining with us in the fight....it just because of the money.
  
  You should really try pulling your head out of that donkey's butt and take a look around once in awhile. And if you can get your head out, get some q-tips and clean all that donkey dung out of your ears!