"... he said he did not understand how U.S. President Barack Obama is able to characterize Iraq as a free, stable and democratic country.
"What sort of Iraq we are talking about?" he asked. "How the Americans will feel proud? How the American administration is going to justify to the taxpayer the billion of dollars that has been spent and at the end of the day the American saying, 'Sorry, we have no leverage even to put things in order in Iraq'?"
Though Iraq's instability may not affect this year's election campaign in the United States, "it is going to affect the American interest in the region, and they should be very much concern about that," al-Hashimi said. "The future of Iraq is grim."" CNN
-------------------------------
The neocons seek to spin this mess that they created into victory in Egypt, etc. Spin away. Spin away! pl
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/30/world/meast/iraq-al-hashimi/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories
You have to love it. Setting the stage for a re-occupation down the road....maybe. Why not? Sequels are all the rage these days. There's more blood to be fracked out of these seemingly bloodless rocks. The pipeline for potential attacks/invasions/occupations is stuffed full right now. So many to choose from....so little time.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 30 January 2012 at 06:56 PM
MB
Who is "setting the stage?" The US? Don't be absurd. We are through with them. They can rot on their own and kill each other to their hearts content for all we care. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 January 2012 at 10:29 PM
I watched the interview. He seemed astonished that we actually wasted all those resources, left Iraq and seemed to think we couldn't wait to come back.
Posted by: bth | 30 January 2012 at 11:23 PM
bth
He is mistaken. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 January 2012 at 11:52 PM
If that's all they do, I agree, they will be left alone, but closely monitored, to keep the state failed with minimal assistance from the West, however, if there is even one whiff of independent, constructive nationalism that is in any way seen as a threat to Western interests, you can be sure there will be every attempt to smother such a baby in the cradle, and if that's unsuccessful, another attack/invasion/occupation would possibly be forthcoming.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 31 January 2012 at 06:27 AM
Oil as it did all along will bring the USA back to Iraq!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 31 January 2012 at 08:19 AM
WRC
What is the evidence that the lust for Iraqi oil caused us to invade and occupy Iraq? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 January 2012 at 08:33 AM
MB
A paranoid fantasy. By the same logic the West is "screwing up" the Egyptian revolution rather than the Ehgyptians. arabs need to grow up enough to take credit for their own inadequacies. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 January 2012 at 08:35 AM
I have only one thing to say to Mr. Hashimi: Why were you so quiet when Sunni terrorists planted bomb after bomb after bomb murdering Shia? Shia at mosques. Shia lining up for work. Shia in marketplaces.
I have zero sympathy for the Sunni of Iraq.
Posted by: Matthew | 31 January 2012 at 11:12 AM
Never ascribe to evil that which can be easily explained by sheer stupidity.
Posted by: Byron Raum | 31 January 2012 at 03:42 PM
I didn't say the Iraqis aren't screwing up. They are, and it's theirs now to screw up, and I fully expect them to screw up, yet I still stand by what I said as a plausible possibility.
My views about Middle Easterners is not what you assume it to be. In fact, one of the reasons I like your blog is because you are an equal opportunity critic, meaning you equitably level criticism at all those deserving of it, be it the U.S. military, NATO, the Mullahs and other various despotic thugs sprinkled about the Middle East and the Globe. That's a hard find these days, and I appreciate it, and share the sentiments.
That being said, if what I said is a fantasy, so be it, but it's not my fantasy. I surely hope what I said is wrong, and in this case I would be more than happy to eat my hat if I am wrong, because, afterall, it's my hard-earned tax dollars that would be funding such transparent creative destruction.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 31 January 2012 at 05:25 PM
US need for oil isn't a direct cause for invasion of Iraq anymore than overthrowing Mossadegh is a direct consequence of Englands need for oil but the fact is we've got buckets of wealth in the military and thats the tool we're using to "secure" energy supplies. Only problem is that the supply is peaking and the military doesn't make oil.
Posted by: Lee Gardner | 31 January 2012 at 05:52 PM
Lee Gardner
"we've got buckets of wealth in the military and thats the tool we're using to "secure" energy supplies." What crapola! Did use of the military in Iraq "secure" oil supplies for us? No! Buying oil on the world market secures oil for us. You need to forget the silliness some left wing professor poured into your head, pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 January 2012 at 08:23 PM
Mr. Lang,
Given my high school and vocational education there's no left wing professor filling my head. My understanding is that the Carter Doctrine began the process of placing US forces in the Persian Gulf with each administration increasing the commitment. The rational I recall given by each administration was to secure the worlds supply of oil safe passage through the Straits.
That this narrative is the stated one doesn't mean it has to make sense. There were ones given for the invasion of Iraq that didn't make much sense either.
I appreciate the opportunity to post on your blog and receive a response but I did not come here to spar or be insulted. Maybe your committee needs an invitation so as to suffer fools coming in off the street.
no need to post this response
Posted by: Lee Gardner | 01 February 2012 at 04:33 PM
Lee Gardner
"The rational I recall given by each administration was to secure the worlds supply of oil safe passage through the Straits"
Your recollection is wrong. Early US concerns about the Gulf and the straits were altogether about the USSR.
If you can't take the abuse, goodbye. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 01 February 2012 at 05:11 PM
Colonel,
It may be that Hashemi is guilty. He was a coy cheerleader of those killing American troops. The rumor is that there is camera evidence implicating his people, if not him. The day after the warrant against him was announced, bombs went off all over Baghdad. Reconciliation is a two-way street - Maliki can't tolerate insiders setting off bombs at the seat of government using their VIP badges to get explosives in.
Also, is your display of the "Zionist" flag of Iraq, rejected in 2004 for its similarities (two blue stripes, meh) to the Israeli flag, an ironic comment?
Here's the present flag of Iraq:
http://flagspot.net/images/i/iq.gif
Posted by: Green Zone Cafe | 02 February 2012 at 07:00 AM
GZC
So, you find it annoying that I thnk the CPA Zionist flag is symbolic of the mess we made? As for Hashimi, yes he fought us. What else would he have done? What would you have done if you had been a Sunni Arab in a country under military occupation that was being handed over to your enemies? What would you have done? Before you ask, does that mean I would not have fought the Sunni huerrillas if I had been young enough? No, it does not. i would have served. Analysis is not advocacy. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 February 2012 at 08:17 AM
Colonel,
Do two blue stripes make a "Zionist" flag? Yes, I know that is what the conspiratorial mindset among some Arabs made of it, but could it be that the blue stripes represented what the designer said they did, the Tigris and the Euphrates?
As for Hashemi, he is the Vice President in a government that has a complicated power/spoils sharing system. He's been Deputy Prime Minister, too, even during "the Occupation." Now, even "the Occupation" is over. His party did not get enough votes in an election largely judged to be free and fair. He still has considerable power. What would justify him or his people planting bombs in the Parliament's parking lot nowadays?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-04/us-iraq-ambassador-al-hashemi/52380988/1
Posted by: Green Zone Cafe | 02 February 2012 at 09:19 AM
GZC
You are not a marine. you are one of Bremmer's people. What was your job in the CPA? You called it the "CPA Zionist" flag. So, you are revealed. You are just another neocon looking for a place to meddle in other peoples' affairs. People like you caused us to invade and occupy the country. Then, you were surprised when they did not surrender and fought back. The blood of American soldiers is on your hands. Now, you are surprised that they will continue to fight against a government that is aligned with our Iranian adversaries and which has not honored the power sharing agreement it made to settle the electoral impasse. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 February 2012 at 09:36 AM
Colonel,
No, I'm not a Marine, and I never claimed to be one. I served in your service and one other. I never got around to the Marines, although I admire their esprit.
I didn't call it the "CPA Zionist" flag, you did. I called it the "Zionist" flag. The quotation marks indicate I attribute that to others, and also irony.
Yes, I did work for Bremer - the scapegoat.
You would be surprised for the reasons I got involved in this. I was against the invasion, but once involved, tried to make things better.
Posted by: Green Zone Cafe | 02 February 2012 at 12:17 PM
GZC
You are right I added the CPA thing to your description but it WAS the CPA that pushed that foreign designed flag at the Iraqis. Did you really think they would accept that? Did you "make it better?" Bremer is a scapegoat? What a joke! He was a key implementer of the neocon scheme from the beginning. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 February 2012 at 12:39 PM
Did I make it better? I don't know. I will have to deal with that for the rest of my life. Since you are personalizing this by launching an attack on me as a "neocon," and that "the blood of American soldiers is on your hands," I could ask you if you made Vietnam better. I think that might give you some perspective. Why don't you go the whole hog and call me "baby killer?"
Bremer was just another confused sod in Baghdad who got drafted into what he thought was national service and had his head spun around by the Iraqi expats, Rumsfeld and Feith. We were all out of our depth.
Posted by: Green Zone Cafe | 02 February 2012 at 01:32 PM
Re: the scapegoat
When Bremer disbanded the Army and started
the de-Baathification program it sowed the
seeds for the insurgency. As conditions
worsened and got out of control we were told
he did this on his own. This always seemed
implausible. How did the Viceroy of Baghdad
make these decisions? Did Doug"the stupidest
guy on the planet" Feith and the Office of
Special Plans have any input? The Bush ad
was shocked he did this. Was there plausible
deniability built in?
Posted by: steve g | 02 February 2012 at 02:34 PM
GZC
Yes, we made VN better. A hell of a lot of Vietnamese wanted to live in a non-Communist state. Three hundred thousand + of them fought for that. we lost. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 February 2012 at 03:39 PM
Ah, that idiotic flag. I can think of no better symbol of the rank incompetence of the CPA, itself a product of heroic ignorance coupled with vast arrogance. From memory, some crony or relative of a "governing council" member made six figures on the contract.
The average CPA short-termer departed Iraq as blissfully ignorant of its politics and people as the moment he or she arrived and shaking their heads over how those durn Iraqis just don't "get it."
Bremer was manifestly unqualified for the task (which at any rate may have been impossible given US politics) but unable to recognize his own unsuitability.
I'm sure you did the best you could GZC, but i will never forget the high-handed, assertive ignorance of the CPA.
Posted by: DanM | 02 February 2012 at 04:51 PM