« Leibowitz and Silverstein, their story. | Main | Pat Lang post on TA »

16 October 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Minnerath

The end result was known to all except those in their shiny houses on that hill who couldn't see what was going on through the stained glass.

Roy G.

I'd guess that snark precludes acknowledging the people who saw through the tissue of lies that led the US into this morass. And, telling the Iraqis that 'they won,' is some sort of grim joke, given that hundreds of thousands of them have died during the US reign, and they are now in possession of a failed state, the 'broken china shop' that the cowardly apparatchik Colin Powell waxed so eloquently about.

Saying 'it was about oil' is a simplistic explanation for the complex phenomenon of war profiteering, whether the profit comes from oil or munitions or govt. contracts, increased budgets, election wins, or whatever. Personally, I think the real snark has always been the false conceit that the neocons actually cared for the Iraqi people, or the people of the ME, or Afghanistan or anywhere in the world that Sauron cares to gaze. Cui bono rules.


The same commentary could have been written for the 5000, Take It Or Leave It post. In other words, the exit without any gain to the US has been in the works for awhile. I'm not even sure the Iraqis won, although it's clear Teheran did.

RAISER William

I was one who thought the Americans would never leave. I'm still not sure we will -- lots of mercenaries and klepto-capitalists still left.

I am surprised the the Iraqis have held together enough to kick the formal American military out. As I understand, however, we may just move next door.

I think you have the right to say, "I told you so," but I'm still not sure your reasoning is accurate. The neo-cons had their strange ideas, but the speculators still lurk.

Keep up the analysis for the benefit of the rest of us.



"I'm still not sure we will -- lots of mercenaries and klepto-capitalists still left."

Amazing. You haven't learned a damned thing. Business men are the equivalent of military occupation and the State Department's pathetic security guard hostages are an army? My god, man. They won't even have immunity from Iraqi law! pl



"The same commentary could have been written for the 5000, Take It Or Leave It post."

So, what do you want me to do, shut up?

You are not sure the Iraqi resistance to us won? What sort of proof would you like of their "win" and our defeat? pl



So, you were one of those who was not deceived? Interesting.

The Iraqi resistance and politicans did not win? first of wll you have no idea about the number of Iraqi casualties. you just pulled that number out of your a-s.

You don't think they won in spite of their casualties? Do you know any history at all? The Union Army won. they had lost 300,000 dead. The USSR won. They had lost millions of men. We lost a quarter of a million men in WW2 but we won. Grow up! pl



I find it amusing that so many of you cannot accept the notion of defeat. I suppose that is American Exceptionailsm at work. pl

William P. Fitzgerald III

Pat Lang,

For your post, I prefer facetious rather than sarcastic as a description; and irony certainly characterizes the Second Iraq War and the result.

As for war aims, the neo-conservative agenda was/is as you describe. However, the move to war was supported by a small galaxy of interests besides the neo-cons and I'm of the opinion contracts for development rights to the Iraqi oil fields were in the mix.


John Kirkman

Quoted from http://www.juancole.com/; “all US troops will have to leave Iraq by 31 December, in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated between George W. Bush and the Iraqi parliament.
The US embassy in Baghdad announced the US Air Force has now handed responsibility for Iraq’s air space over to the Iraqis.”
This could mean if Israel is to bomb Iran using Iraqi airspace, they would have to do it before 31 December because the Iraqi’s will not be expected to cooperate with Israel?



"I'm of the opinion contracts for development rights to the Iraqi oil fields."

maybe, but if that was a serious motive they did a poor job of trying to achieve it. Nah! pl


John Kirkman

air space control over Iraq is meaningless either before or after the first of the year. pl

Old Gun Pilot

"...the war is over" That's the same comment I made in 1968 when I saw an MP put a parking ticket on a jeep at Marble Mountain.



you've got it pal. now another generation will get to know what it is like to be thought of as "losers." pl


What retreating army has left it's diplomats, a palace guard of 160 warriors, and 5000 mercenaries & servants in fortified strongholds on the field of battle?

I'm the world's biggest coward, but you couldn't pay me enough to stay behind when the troops are gone!!



The 160 are in the attache office and are diplomats. they have no combat effect at all. the security guards wil have small arms. We will see if the state department can find people who wantthis job. pl


. now another generation will get to know what it is like to be thought of as "losers." pl

Col, there is an old saying; “In every loss, there is a gain, and in every gain, there is a loss”

Perhaps, “the People” will learn to stand up next time, there is war drums, and see the warmongers stand down.


"...neocon view such perfection would include transformation of the Iraqis into Western Man and an eternal friendliness towards the Zionist Project..."

I totally agree with you Colonel. However, I was always of the opinion that the true objective of the Iraq war was to create a staging area for "US Military Group East" in an "Operation Retake Iran from the Ayatollahs" scenario with Afghanistan as a possible "US Military Group West" staging area? After all didn't Chulabi, and other Iraqi "dissidents", convince the Bushies that "Iraqi Freedom" would be a cake walk? Unfortunately reality set in, people dislike being attacked and conquered.



Do you see any sign of that? pl

Medicine Man

Who views snark negatively? Not I.

My first thought regarding this is "good for the Iraqis". They may have done themselves and the US a favor for finally book ending this misadventure.

RAISER William

I learned some time ago that the military plays a minor role in American imperialism. We lost the military war in Iraq several years ago.

Oil took a hit from the Iraqi unions, much to its surprise.

Money speaks much louder than bullets. It's also patient. I suspect that game is yet to be played out.

You were correct on the military leaving. That surprises me, but they also are rather flexible. Exiting a country is a far cry from exiting the region.

I will watch with interest as the suits and the uniforms continue to play. I'll also continue to read you for further insights.


Here is something from my favorite Sunday morning pundit: LAO TZU - worth pondering.

"The wise ruler never uses military force to conquer iothers. Every aggressive act harvests its own counter-terrorism

Wherever the aggressor marches, the killing fields lay wast to the land, yielding years of misery

When attacked, those on the path of enlightenment defend themselves benevolently, never revenging

Achieve success without arrogance, without triumphalism, without violating others

Aggression leaches our strength and humanity, inviting disaster"

Medicine Man

Col. Lang:

Going off-topic -- I know it's not your region, but do you have any thoughts on the US's recent decision to send 100 military advisers to Uganda to help track down Joseph Kony and put an end to the Lord's Resistance Army?



as long as mission creep does not set in, its a good SF mission. pl


Dr. Brenner

how do you feel about WW2 and Korea? pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

January 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad