New column in the Times of London, June 15. Title: "Why we must break with the American crazies". This War was designed to be an abortion, so it would be lengthy, deadly, and expensive. Now the same nutballs want to tell us that they can 'end the Iranian threat' using only air and sea power.
kaletsky, times online wrote:Compare the intelligence failures from which Mr Brown wants to draw his lessons with the facts – confirmed in numerous published memoirs – about this war’s irresponsible and incompetent conduct that are now common knowledge in America.For instance, General Anthony Zinni, the chief of US central command, war-gamed Iraq for more than a year before the invasion and every scenario he devised ended in a disaster, requiring many hundreds of thousands of US troops to bring it under control and remain in occupation for many years. Yet none of these scenarios was even considered by President Bush when he made the decision to invade.
Vice-President Cheney viewed the Iraq as a perfect opportunity to prove the “Rumsfeld doctrine” of low-manpower, shock-and-awe aerial warfare, without any need for the US to win allies or for the military to engage in “state-building” tasks.
There is now strong evidence that President Bush didn’t even know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims when he decided to attack Iraq – and that dissenting opinions were simply blocked by Mr Cheney before they could reach the President’s desk.
The State Department had prepared to send hundreds of diplomats and private sector construction experts with Arab-language skills and Middle East experience to help to rebuild Iraq. But less than a month before the war started, all these people were “stood down” on orders from Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, as their Middle East experience would bias them towards an “Islamist” and defeatist worldview.
A conversation from November, 2006:
Eierdiebe wrote:we aren't the least bit happy to hear that over 600,000 people in Iraq are dead .
galanter wrote:Well here is some good news then. That statistic is almost certainly bogus.
bad comrade wrote:Ok, so let's go with this:
"General George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, says that the highest figure he has seen of civilian deaths is 50,000"
That's "cool" then? "Only" 50,000? We should be happy that our government has killed 50,000 humans under false pretenses? Saddam was gonna kill them all anyway, right?
You blow my mind all the time.
galanter wrote:The vast majority of deaths in Iraq at this time are Iraqis killing other Iraqis.
Beginning after the occupation.
galanter wrote:The US does not condone or encourage this.
They don't?? They are allowed to say they don't encourage it because they refused to accept predictions of it?
galanter wrote: We are certainly not killing all of those people directly.
galanter wrote:You may want to claim that the US is indirectly responsible, but it is not at all clear that the alternative, leaving Saddam in power, would have resulted in fewer deaths.
It's not? History doesn't suggest that the occupation unleashed the violence?
galanter wrote: Nor is it likely that a sudden US pullout would result in fewer deaths.
Why should an invasion lover like you have his opinion accepted here?