"a stable, democratic, united Iraq, an ally in the war on Terra"

[Alcibiades]

justificationon why the occupation of Iraq has been such a failure is that its leaders have no intention of ever winning, no intention of ever ending the occupation. The Cheney regime’s real goal is to keep the war going on forever, or at least as long as it can, not in order to accomplish any neoconservative ambitions abroad (though the Cheneyists probably think that would be nice), but rather because they think that a permanent war abroad secures them permanent political dominance at home. Cheney’s evil genius reveals itself in the audacity of his plan, which makes a claim about the reasonableness of the people in a democratic nation. Contrary to what the founding fathers and the other leading lights of the enlightenment argued, Cheney holds that people are not ruled by reason, but by fear. The consequence of this is that, in a democratic nation, so long as 50.001% of the people who vote can be ruled by fear, they can be cowed into voting for a strong man, or, at least, a man who is apparently strong to them.

For this strategy to work, however, there must be a threat, an existential dagger aimed at the heart of the nation. No such threat exists today, so every effort has been made to exaggerate the threat posed by Al Queda so that it will do. We all know how the Cheney regime relied on the ignorance of many people in order to use a terrorist attack by a Wahabbi enemy into a so-called “justification” of an attack on a secular, dictatorial, yet largely Shiite country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11, and how the regime has kept moving the goalposts and rationale for war, how it was first aimed at stopping Hussein's WMD program, how it was then aimed at toppling the regime of a human rights abuser, and the dozen or so other rationales that have been offered. Today, however, these rationales have been thrown away, and the Cheney regime has settled upon establishing a government of a certain type in Iraq as sufficient reason for the invasion and ongoing occupation. The mantra, repeated over and over, is that we are out to create:“... a united, stable, and democratic Iraq—a new ally in the war on terror."

Those who have always argued that the War in Iraq is wrong have challenged it on just about every basis, but it is too seldom that we sufficiently question the very possibility of the outcome Cheney’s mouthpiece often drawls on about. The Cheney regime also offers this as though it were an either/or proposition, yet, in alllikelihoodd, the real outcome will be a regime in Iraq that is two, or even three, of these things, but not all four.

The Cheney regime has set our military to the task of creating a mythical animal. We have allies in the Arab world, but none of them are democratic. There are democracies (most notably Israel) int the Middle East, but they cannot be said to be characterized by stability. A democratic Kurdistan would most probably be an independent Kurdistan. A democratic Iraq would most likely be an ally of Iran, not the US.

For Cheney, these goals have the virtue of being impossible, without seeming so. Yet, before the neocons and Cheneyists have a chance to blame the Democrats for their own failures in Iraq, we need to make it clear that there is no chance of securing a united, stable, democratic Iraq that is allied with the US. This is not the fault of Democrats, but lies in the impossibility of the task itself. After all, if you give someone a barrel full of fish tails, a barrel full of monkey torsos, some monofilament and a needle, it’s not their fault if what they come up with is not a real mermaid.

[mdmc]

1. A stable, pro west, unified, democratic Iraq is possible

But it will take an enormous sacrifice from us and all freedom loving people.

I opposed this war because I knew that a stable, pro west, unified, democratic Iraq was at least 50 years away. We would need to occupy and invest in Iraq for decades.

The only way out of Iraq is to admit that these goals cannot be met. The sooner we admit defeat, the sooner we can get out.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Not in my lifetime. It may have been possible before we turned it into a FUBAR

situation.

[Alcibiades]

3. What if these things are inherently contradictory?

For example, it may be the will of a majority of the Iraqi people, for example the Shiah, that Iraq should ally itself with a nation other than the US, for example Iran. our current policy implies that there is no trade-off between democracy and friendliness to the United States, but given the way the US has handled the occupation, I would be very surprised if any government that legitimately expressed the will of the Iraqi people would choose to ally itself with the US. Heck, even the government in there now, totally dependent on us, nonetheless treats Iran as its friend whenever it suits it.

What are our priorities? If we must choose between an Iraq that is our ally and one that is a democracy, which will we choose? If the new regime in Iraq is to be established upon a liberal and democratic system of legitimacy, then it is simply not the place of political elites in the west to make preconditions on what the policies of any such state would be.

The point is that this is not really defeat. We "won" the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein is gone. Yet the neoconservatives have successfully inserted a new set of victory conditions totally unrelated to our original war aims. If Bush had sent our troops into Iraq with the orders "bring me back a piece of the moon," nobody would call it defeat if they failed to bring back a piece of the moon. What we have here is something similar.

[mdmc]

4. the goal was not to beat Iraq

the goal was to "un-do" GHWB "mistake" of leaving Saddam Hussein in power.

The goal was to overthrow the government and install a pro-west, unified, democratic Iraq.

Worse, this goal was never achievable, let alone "easy". I knew that we would not be greeted as liberators.

We need to admit that it was a mistake to do what we did. Once we admit that, we can agree to new conditions for "victory".

[welshTerrier2]

5. "the goal"

whose goal are you referring to when you say the goal was to install a pro-west, unified, democratic Iraq?

bush's goal was to help his oily friends acquire oil by establishing a US puppet in Iraq. he's been very successful so far.

[mdmc]

6. yes

and the public goal was a pro-west, unified, stable, democratic iraq. We failed at the public goal; Bush's private goal (profits) has been successful.