Rolling Stone has truely lost its edge, they have clearly hired a bunch of punks who have no knowledge of world or U.S. events prior to 2000 and they pay them to express their opions. Drew you must have been a toddler during Bush Sr. administration. How else to explain your inane statement that Baker has no experience in Middle Eastern affairs. I’m no Republican, and I’m only 32, but I do distinctly recall that he traveled to and negotiated in the Middle East. He has much more knowledge than you.

To say Baker’s got scant Middle East experience is utter ignorance.

And McCain’s been consistently pro-Go Big since the start of the war; he opposed the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz policy of trying to do it on the cheap and then hope for the best.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq is suffering from a power vacuum right now. If the goal is stability, then somebody needs to win power in Iraq. Bush has framed two choices as “stay and win or retreat and lose,” but that confuses tactics with an actual strategy. The anti-war crowd frames it as “stay the course or get out of there,” but that’s also a false choice.

The choices should be “try and influence who wins power in Iraq, or let them work it out themselves.” The former will require more American sacrifice in the near term; the latter more Iraqi blood. To imply that both the Democrats and Dubya are rooting for more American deaths is offensive.

rolling stone has lost its edge? i’m not going to fool anyone into thinking that i’m knowledgable on this subject. setting the facts aside (whatever they may be), however, this is a very biting, well-written report.

Um… where’s the link to the latest Taibbi? I would have expected “In his latest knock-out” to be a link.

I agree with many of Taibbi’s points and believe that he is an excellent writer. However, when he uses vulgar metaphors and accuses people of things like being fellatious, it detracts from his journalistic integrity. I think that it is hilarious, but a more conservative person will automatically dismiss his article before considering any of his points. Although I must say that respect the hell out of his passion.

story well written They have never been there, so typical for Wash politics.

taibbi is, as usual, spot on

Has Rolling Stone raised the question
on whether or not there was “voter suppression” with the November House/Senate elections?! We need to get to the bottom of this. Wait, the Democrats won. Nevermind.

Taibbi, just state your solution straight out: Run for the exits like mad. Anything less than that, that tries to save lives other than U.S. troops, that tries to stabilize the situation, is a “lost cause” and should be supposedly abandoned in favor of Get Out The Fuck Now. Face it, folks, anything that doesn’t make “washing our hands” of anything and everything to do with the country of Iraq will not satisfy this man or any of his friends that now claim to represent The United States Electorate. America wants out of Iraq, yes–but not by JUST running from the country right now. If we just bolt like the wind tomorrow, or even next month, expect genocide within the year, Saudi Arabia to intervene, and hell to be unleashed.

Bush and Rumsfeld are incompetent bastards. Just because one is gone, and the other is impotent, however, does not mean their war goes away along with their power. If you voted for the Dems based on that, you voted for the wrong party.

ya i think this article is wrong…especially since the actual report calls for drastic changes…

Another facile, overwrought tirade from Taibbi. RS must pay him by the word.

Solution: Replace all people everywhere with ROBOTS.

With an attitude like yours, Matt, I’m waiting for a report of your suicide to show up on the pages of Rolling Stone. “Everything is based on politics, including the Baker-Hamilton report, so why even try? Everything and everyone sucks. Complain, complain, complain, complain, complain.” That was the gist of your article. Did it ever occur to you that there are no obvious solutions to the war in Iraq? What did you really expect the report to say? Did you really expect the report to have some magical solution to the war? If you did, please tell us this magical solution instead of whining and dwelling on the past.

I blow goats.

matt who?

Its too easy to nail Taibbi for a lack of journalistic integrity. No quotations or citations, overly simplistic reasoning, and an unwarranted righteous indignation are, again, all present in the aritcle.

What is amazing, to me, is that he wrote this before the Baker report was released and, therefore, had to rely on leaks to journalists he so often criticizes in order to write this urine-stained screed.

Taibbi’s indignation over the war, like many of my liberal commrades, has clouded his judgement about the current situation.

It is very important that, whatever course of action is taken by the military, is well thought-out. As someone else posted, there are no solutions in Iraq, just choices.

Failure to make the best choice possible could lead to a full-scale civil war & the rise of an Islamic state in Iraq which could be the next major breeding ground for terrorists, a la Afghanistan pre-9/11.

Taibbi’s trivialization of the situation is crude, self-serving and irresponsible.

BTW-Where is Taibbi in these talkbacks? For all the criticism aimed his way, he never shows up to defend himself or his posts, which seems to betray a lack of care for the response. Either that or maybe he realizes he gets paid for invective alone and couldn’t defend his opinions, short of cussing readers out.

RETREAT! APPEASE! COWER! ENSLAVED! DIE ON YOUR KNEES!

Rowr, very well put. If Taibbi has any of the balls that he wants to “hang politician by,” maybe he would actually defend himself against logical points such as the ones you have put forward.

I actually agree with Tiabbi. Both political parties represent not their constituents but their own jobs.

The truly sad thing is that Bush won’t even listen to softball challenges to his policy. He is the sole reason the Iraq war has turned into the fiasco it has simply because his evangelical leanings didn’t allow him to adjust his thinking when it could have mattered. He is the posterchild for what is wrong with rigid religious idealogues in this country.

interesting how such an important issue that could open up intelligent debate has turned into a critique of the few lines that matt wrote.

I really enjoyed George looking humbled and subdued after being pulled down a few pegs by the ISG’s report card, I don’t think he got anything above a c.

Unfortunately Word is right, these guys are more interested in saving US political face. Of 75 recomendations, 4 are for saving Iraq, the rest are merely ways for america to save face in exit. Even to the extent of allowing the main instigators of the violence to be engaged in diplomacy now. I guess it’s something they should have done from the beginning,let’s hope it works. Still think they should be preparing for a major conflict if it fails. Even mexico may be in a civil war in the next 5 years. No wall is going to stop the people trying to escape that mess.

This “Rowr” character is a pathetic loser, and his objections to Taibbi’s reasoning are just straw-grasping quibbling.

And who are all these jackass buddies of his? The ones who show up week after week to denigrate? Who blush at swearing yet post “Taibbi is a fucking idiot” at every opportunity? They pose as connoissuers of political journalism, constantly invoking some higher standard (”the good old days of Rolling Stone,” “real political journalists,” etc.) as if Taibbi is some kind of broadcast-news tool.

In a media full of tools, you don’t look like the most sophisticated person in the room when you call Taibbi a tool. I’m just letting you know that, because above-it-all sophistication seems to be the effect you’re going for. Taibbi is one of the most conspicuous non-tools writing in the mainstream today, as anyone with a clue figured out long ago. Let’s just say that I read a lot of political journalism … and I know a lot of people who read a lot of political journalism … and the opinion that Taibbi’s stuff is better than most is common and uncontroversial.

So let me ask the Taibbi-bashers a favor: Since, according to you, he sucks SO BAD, maybe you can tell us who & where the good journalists are? Start with this week’s column: where is the “ballsy,” non-”douche,” non-”punk” reportage on the Baker-Hamilton Report? I can’t wait to read it.

The war is going as planned. Look for another 500 billion to go into the pockets of the elite, many more Iraqi’s murdered or fleeing for their lives, the 800 billion US-Saudi-Isreali fortress to be competed in Iraq and hopefully soon the drafting of our spoiled young to continue our lust for military enabled genocide.

We won’t ween ourselves from electing Democrats OR Republicans.

We will continue to pay our taxes to fund our royalty and never change course.

Imagine the fun when Isreal forces our hand, as planned, and attacks Iran.

I also don’t understand why so many belligerent, humorless readers return week after week to be infuriated by Matt Taibbi’s columns–unless they just enjoy fuming over them. I enjoy them because they’re funny and honest–one of the only places I can find honest commentary anywhere. But I can imagine that reading Taibbi without a sense of humor must be like looking at Matisse colorblind. It’d make you cranky.

I imagine that Taibbi doesn’t respond to posts here not because he fears being humiliated by his readers’ encyclopedic command of history and debating acumen but because he’s a “writer,” and has already said what he has to say in the piece. It’s not his job to engage in interminable back-and-forth quibbling over every nitpicky literal-minded objection–that is the job of lonely obsessive people with nothing better to do than spend hours on the internet, such as ourselves.

Taibbi does, by the way, make clear what he thinks the main problems are: how to implement these obvious recommendations? When to withdraw the troops, what to offer Iran and Syria in negotiation? He also raises the issue, taboo in the mainstream media, of accountability: holding those responsible who first lied us into this unnecessary war and then criminally bungled its execution. In other words, impeaching the President, and possibly displaying him in a cage on Pennnsylvania Avenue for a time as an important lesson to America’s little future commanders-in-chief. Aren’t conservatives all about Taking Responsibility? Supporters of the administration are anxious to dismiss all this as unconstructive “dwelling on the past”–Jim Baker said the comission wasn’t “looking back”–but it seems to me that this is kind of like the guy who killed your family rolling his eyes and telling you to get over it already, it’s water under the bridge now, no use crying over spilled milk.

Let’s wait and see what bold, dramatic new direction the administration takes in Iraq in the next two years before dismissing Taibbi as cynical. The last six years have done little to discredit cynicism as a worldview.

Tim Kreider

Hey Don, do you think maybe that’s how 1% of the population wind up with 80% of the wealth?

Tim. good to see some post in here that make intelligent arguments. Loved your matisse analogy.

Tim, I agree. I’ll admit I smiled a number of times while reading Taibbi’s column. And he’s largely right. Washington politics is mostly bullshit. Anyone with half a brain knows that, and Taibbi has every right to be frusterated about it and vent a little, as we all do and are doing on this post. Taibbi’s articles are based on cynisim, and he writes them bitingly and with great humor, which is why I like reading them. But if you don’t want people to critique his stuff on these posts, why post at all? Just to say “Yeah, nice job Matt. I agree”? The fun with posting stuff is disagreeing and debating people. Anyway, what I really wanted to say is that having a cynical world view is easy, perhaps too easy. What’s not easy is Iraq. If we leave now, we screw the Iraqis and perhaps the whole region. If we stay, we screw our troops and their families and our tax money. So yeah, it’s easy to be cynical about the whole thing. What’s hard is going in a “bold new direction” as you put it. So what should this bold new masterplan be?

Perhaps I would look more intelligent if I could spell “cynicism.”

I totally agree with Dan…cynicism is too easy and, in my opinion, doesn’t solve anything.

Of course, there’s good reason to be cynical. I think everybody on here could agree that we were lead to war by a bunch of criminals with nefarious schemes and dollar bills on the brain. Sure, they stole two elections. Sure, they gave away contracts to benefit their buddies and passed laws making it legal to disappear and torture American citizens…these are all great reasons to rage against the machine, so to speak, but where’s the end? What’s the goal? Venting is fine, but is there more to it than that?

I’d like Taibbi to get on here, not to disparage him, but to see what he really thinks.

The Baker Commission is bunk? Alright, but what would Taibbi suggest, instead?

You wanna leave Iraq now? Ok, but how’s that going to effect the situation in the Mid East? What’s that gonna mean for Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey?

You wanna impeach the President? Alright, but what happens the day after that one?

Iraq is not going to plan, even for the most criminally rich among us…Haliburton’s pulling out, there are death squads in the streets and no oil revnue for the forseeable future. The administration’s policy is an abject failure and the Iraq Study Group said as much. Y’all are so quick to criticize anyone involved with the establishment while seemingly ignoring the real life consequences of the situation.

And I’m not trying to prove I’m sophisticated, I’d just like to discuss the issues, isn’t that what Taibbi’s column and this talkback are supposed to be about?

If there’s one thing that bothers me about Taibbi’s column, it isn’t a lack of talent or knowledge…he obviously has both. But pissing on everyone isn’t an opinion…standing against everything is equivocal to standing for nothing.

I can understand thinking that Washington is Washington and eveything’s rigged and our Gov reps corporations more than it represents the people but, if that’s where it at, then why participate at all, either here or at the voting booth? Its all in the game, if y’all are just gonna get mad about it, than why play at all?

It’s much more cynical to report on current politics and NOT get mad. Anyone who registers disgust with the way things are, shows that he’s retained some degree of idealism and ethics. Tacit acceptance of modern American government, without criticism, without aversion, without nausea, is the mark of total corruption/complicity. It’s like being in a pig stye and no longer noticing the smell of shit: those who point out that it smells like shit are not the degraded ones.

Ultimately, the distinctive thing about people like Noam Chomsky is that they’re naive enough to expect the US to live up to its own morality. For this fundamental purity, they’re branded as cynics. The real cynics are the ones who take it as given that the US will preach non-aggression and then bomb the hell out of anyone we feel like.

As much as the Bush apologists who show up here panning Matt would like to deny that anyone has to take responsiblity for the mess we’ve created in Iraq, I think in order for us to begin the process of repairing our nation’s reputation we need to hold those who dragged us into this war accountable.

And by accountable, I don’t just mean impeachment. I mean force them to stand trial for the myriad laws they broke in synthesizing the need for this war: the manufactured intelligence, the lies, the coordinated PR campaign, the no bid contracts, the torture.

In the end, I think seeing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the whole bunch of them (Democrats who supported this war, too) swinging from a gallows would send a strong signal to the international community that we as a nation are ready to pay for our crimes.

Those who brought us this war must die.

Calling for the execution of our leaders…now that’s American.

Nobody’s saying that its wrong to be mad about the state of things…hell, everybody agrees on that there’s a lot to be mad about.

The difference between oh, say, a “cynic” like Chomsky and a lot of the folks who post on this site, is that Chomsky discusses facts, looks at the whole of the situation and, yes, proposes solutions. Chomsky doesn’t just want revenge on people he disagrees with, he wants to get to the heart of the problem and solve it.

Calling out Taibbi on a point or two isn’t defending the President, fool. Y’all so blinded by hate that you can’t even tell who yr friends are.

Jamie,

Who would you vote for in 2008 with Hillary and Kerry “swinging from the gallows”?

Yeah, but Chomsky does consistently propose, as an essential part of any real “solution” to US aggression, that our leaders be tried for war crimes (under the rules they themselves apply to their enemies). Taibbi’s “hang ‘em by the balls” only differs superficially.

To my knowledge, Chomsky calls for the US to be held culpable under War Crimes legislation…not necessarily the persecution of the current administration. The thinking being that if the US could be held accountable under War Crimes legislation, our government would be discouraged from starting any new, insane wars. But I don’t know for sure…maybe your right.

I totally agree that Bush, et al. are criminally negligent (if not culpable) for the current situation. But they didn’t start the Neurenberg (sp?) trials unti after WW II, did they?

I think we need to get out of this mess before we start going after those accountable. Feingold was suggesting Censure…I think that’s a lot better option than impeachment. Particularly if impeachment leads to President Cheney (or if you take out Cheney, too, President Pelosi). Not that I don’t like Pelosi, but she hasn’t been voted for.

Halzee:

I certainly wouldn’t vote for Kerry or Hillary, I can assure you of that. Kerry is a Bonesman, just like George Bush and George HW Bush. He was installed by the establishment media to lose, which is why he ran such a lousy campaign and continually failed to show even a trace of charisma, backbone, or creativity.

Hillary is another establishment candidate, approved by the media because she’s willing to play the game. She and Bill both understand their function in the grand political theater that we as Americans are subjected to: represent the left, but not so well as to make any actual progress toward their goals.

I think we need a round-robin style primary system in this country. I think candidates should begin their campaigns on the local level, engaging in moderated debates and building support within their communities.

The winners of those debates should then proceed to a county-wide round of debates against the candidates who won in other localities. From there, it could move on to the state level, then possibly regional, and finally the national level.

Cream rises to the top, and I’m tired of being spoon fed my presidential choices by the corporate media. Whose interests do you think the media is really representing in this country? I’ll give you a hint: they’re not your interests, and they’re not my interests. They represent establishment interests.

Why do we continue to allow them to decide who is qualified to run the show? Say what you will about Howard Dean, but he was right about the Iraq war. Sure, he made one ridiculous scream after losing the Iowa caucus, but did the media really have to gang up on him and destroy his candidacy because of that?

Yes, they did, because he represented a threat to the status quo. He would have changed the national discussion in this country back before the 2004 elections.

I am furious at the entire political establishment in this country. I’m sick of Washington in general, and I want some justice for a change.

If I kicked in the door to your house and killed your entire family but didn’t get caught until the next day, would you be willing to let me get away with it because it happened “in the past”? Last I checked there’s no statute of limitations on capital crimes, and I think starting a war for profit qualifies as a capital crime.

I reiterate that I want to see those responsible for this war – and all those who’ve profited handsomely off of this war – hanged for their crimes.

And the Oscar goes to

“Jaime”

On behalf of the Oscars we apologize on the name.

The oscar goes to “Jamie”

How could “the US be held culpable” without individuals being held culpable, i.e., tried? And which individuals are responsible for the Iraq war if not members of the current administration?

Of course the Nuremberg trials didn’t begin until after WWII. Similarly, Saddam’s trial didn’t begin until after he was captured. That’s the thing about tyrannical governments: you have to knock them down before you can bring their leaders to justice. The assumption that, by contrast, the US gov’t is not (as yet) a tyrannical regime seems reasonable to me; at any rate it is the opposite of “cynicism.”

More response to Taibbi-bashing, in the form of an apt Orwell quote:

“The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. Although the point of emphasis may vary, the writer who refuses to sell his opinions is always branded as a mere egoist. He is accused, that is, of either wanting to shut himself up in an ivory tower, or of making an exhibitionist display of his own personality, or of resisting the inevitable current of history in an attempt to cling to unjustified privilege.”

I’m impressed! Strong intelligent comments without going off the handle and resorting to insults and rethoric. Welcome guys…. or ladies.

Jamie, I’m with you. I say, let their crimes be prosecuted and they held accountable for their actions. It’s time we take our country back.

Rumsfeld is being tried at this very second. The outcome of his trial is a true litmus test of whether the world is serious about trying the U.S. for anything at all.

I believe Rumsfeld’s head will be asked for by foreign countries intent on minimizing u.s. influence in the world. This is another awful casualty of Bush’s failure as a man and president: he has exposed the u.s. to the world as a paper tiger; a military power that has extremely limited power. This obviously limits subsequent U.S. governments powers to operate in the world.

I simply don’t understand the arguments as to why George W. Bush isn’t the WORST president ever. This man is an evangelical christian. Evangelical christians are destined to fail because of thier learned stupidity. They are unfit to lead as a people and as an ideology. The hallmark of an evangelical is his willingness to rely on God as an answer to everything. Obviously, this isn’t working in terms of militant Islam; a new approach is needed. Hopefully some of “god’s people” could realise this.

Or not. Maybe they’d feel better crucifying themselves; hell, it would help the rest of us out…

Fantastic writing! “rotting political corpses” is so true and conjures up the exact image I had of this group and and its potential contribution. But alas, they ended up contributing nothing useful to this horrible Iraq War nightmare. I hope Matt is wrong that more senseless deaths of our soldiers and civilians will continue to 2008 for political gain.

I know this was written before the report came out but a couple of things in the article need to be corrected.

The report specifically says that staying the course is not an option.

The report is not wishy washy at all about saying that the situation in Iraq is totally fucked up which very starkly contradicts Bush’s recent public pronouncements. Also by pointing out that the violence is almost all sectarian it flatly contradicts Bush’s statement from last week that Al Qaeda is responsible for the majority of the violence. It goes on to say that the violence there has been underreported. It’s bipartisan proof that he’s been lying to us and makes me wonder if people like Baker may even see the need to have W impeached. It definitely shows that he and the other republicans at least think that W needed to be publicly rebuked and that diminishes his political power. It reminds me of a review you give to someone you want to force out of a job except it’s been made public. This report and his predictable reaction to it so isolates him from all but the dead-enders that I can’t believe that Baker didn’t have in mind to throw him under the bus, politically, historically. This mess can’t be blamed on the left so the next best thing for him was to pin the blame on W, Cheney and their ilk sparing future “mainstream” republicans.

Anyone who expected this committee to come up with a waterproof solution to a disaster was being silly. But this report is extremely valuable in marginalizing Bush and the neocons in present day politics and it ensures that historically they are as fucked as they should be.

LawnGuy, you put it into its very best context there. You are absolutely right about that. Now if the media, the moderate repubes and the public will just wake up and run with the obvious tools/ammo this gives them and call them out on it, we may see some progress.

Something that really worries me about the ISG report, and should worry the rest of us, is something that Hamilton(174) keeps repeating.
Even if we had the political will to put in 100k or more troops into Iraq to control the situation, it would be impossible as we don’t have the troops to do it with.
This is rather disconcerting because our enemies may view this weakness as an opportunity to do whatever they want.
China invading Taiwan for example. Syria could overtly invade Lebanon once again after persuading Hezbolla to start a civil war as they seem to be doing.
Something else about the current global situation… we seem to be ignoring our own back yard. Mexico is going through some serious problems and the pieces are being put in place to send it into civil war in the next few years. Looks like it’s time to start up the draft, a real one, no deferrements on the basis of wealth or connections.

I think if more people read the report (including Taibbi) they’d see that its not part of any grand conspiracy (”so tired…”) but rather a scathing rebuke of the Administration for their actions at every point in the Iraqi conflict.

People project a sort-of evil genius image onto the Bush Administration, when reality has proven time and again that they are just extraordinarily inept. And this is precisely what the Baker commission’s report points out…

Further, Baker’s placement at the head of the commission was a move orchestrated by Congress…not by the Administration, which resisted the formation of the Iraq Study Group as much as was possible.

The ISG’s report is a concrete statement made by members of the previous two administrations that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake and that its execution has only made the world worse.

A side note–there are no options for indicting members of the US Administration, as their actions have been backed/endorsed by Congress every step of the way. In addition, the US is not a participant in the International War Crimes Tribunal and, therefore, administration members cannot be tried in that forum.

In my opinion, the best way to get back at the Neo-Cons and Republican leadership is to get out of Iraq in a noble fashion…one that will not set-off the powder-keg that is the Mid East. And to vote for alternatives to this line of foreign policy (no Clinton in ‘08).

Great article – dead on. The ISG report provides no new avenues, only the same ones that Bush 43 has refused, and will continue to refuse, to choose.

The date that the US military leaves Iraq is the date that the US can begin claiming, with seriousness, that it isn’t as responsible for Iraq’s troubles.

The longer the US military stays in Iraq, the longer everything can, and should, be blamed on the US. How many dead US soldiers will be piled on top of Bush 43’s ego? I don’t care to make such morbid predictions.

What I do predict is that the US military can’t pacify Iraq. Not with another 20-30 thousand troops, and not with the entire US armed forces. The military targets in Iraq have all been successfully destroyed. The Iraqi army was vanquished, so there are no more proper military objectives left, only an unjust occupation.

So let the US military come home. ASAP. At least US soldiers won’t be attacked, wounded, and / or killed by Iraqis, and they’ll be left to focus on ’standing up’.

As far as the ‘we’re fighting them over there’ crowd goes, fuck off. The Iraq occupation is a remarkable recruiting tool for the murderous misfits that attacked the US on 9/11. Withdrawal from Iraq will limit such recruiting (and on the ground training) to the old canards — The US army on “holy ground” in Saudi Arabia (not really there anymore), and propping up friendly fascists (not that many left, are there?) in the region.

Even if the US military stays in Iraq, and democracy flourishes, the odds are very high that the voters will choose a government unfriendly to the US. There never has been a guarantee of the Iraqi people electing candidates and parties friendly to the occupying power, despite what you bought into in 2003.

Matt Taibbi is fast becoming one of my favorite writers, despite being “a professional misanthrope”. We can’t all be perfect, can we?

i meant to say Pres. Bush has operated probably one of the worst wars ever probably the worst ever!

war, huh! now war is supposed to be what? some kind of elite wasp rite of passage? he operated a war? people are dying. some are dying from lack of the hard necessities for life; i.e. food, water, shelter, medical care… so this dickhead, spoiled rotten little frat boy sadist can prove his manhood. spare me your piffling support of the good ole boys.

Sorry, I certainly wasn’t trying to quash debate–just don’t get why people who only insult Taibbi’s writing and find it worthless seem to keep coming back for more every week. There are 93,000,000,000 other sites on the internet, one of which is bound to agree with you, no matter how big a crackpot you are.

Luckily it is not up to us to determine the course in Iraq (though I’m sure we could do no worse than the people whose job it actuallly is). I think what Taibbi is trying to get us to face in this piece is the last thing Americans want to hear: that there is no solution. Or least no good one. That all the options are painful, and it’s likely to be a catastrophe no matter what we do. It is the dreaded lose/lose situation, the Kobyashi Maru, “a huge shit sandwich, and we’re all going to have to take a bite.” And that, worst of all, no one in Washington has the courage or integrity to even try to do anything about it.

The scenario invoked by “so tired ofstating the obvious” is indeed a grim one. I can only pray that if it does, indeed, come to this, I will get to play a role analagous to that of Brain (Harry Dean Stanton), who lived in the New York Public Library and went out with Adrienne Barbeau.

Tim Kreider

P.S. Just throwing this out there, but does anyone have any theories on why it’s always conservatives whose writing is riddled with the saddest, most basic spelling and grammatical errors, as well as childish insults like “pussies” and “retards”? I mean anything other than the obvious?

I’ve tried to use the three “levels of analysis” (taught in Political Science 103 – International Relations) to help clarify my perceptions of the Iraq situation. Following is a very brief outline.

System Level (The world is a system of anarchic actors – states)

The world is primarily an anarchic system, although there has been a great deal of cooperation, especially among “western” states, since the end of WWII. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has emerged as the preeminent power on the world stage.

* The U.S. is the only state in the world with the resources and the experience to act in the manner it has in Iraq.
o The U.S. military is effectively unmatched by any other state.
o The U.S. arguably had great success with the Marshall Plan in re-building several European states after WWII.
o MacArthur successfully occupied and led a conversion of Japan to democracy after WWII.

* Iraq is an important source of crude oil for many of the world’s economies.

* Iraq’s location in the center of the Middle East has strategic and tactical military value.

State Level (Exploring the situation inside the state)

Iraq is a conquered state in need of political and economic rebuilding – in the much the same way of Japan after WWII. However, despite some political and economic similarities, there are also some key differences.

* Iraq had less of its previous government left intact after the U.S. invasion than Japan did; Japan had at the least the figurehead of its Emperor to help maintain a sense of national identity.

* Iraq is also a much newer state than Japan was; Iraq has distinct cultural and ethnic separations among its populace and less of a common national heritage than Japan had.

* Iraq is virtually land-locked and is surrounded by states of similar ethnic and cultural people; whereas Japan is an island and had been relatively isolated for centuries.

* In twice as many years, the rebuilding of Iraq to date has been much less successful than was that of Japan.

* The U.S. administration, for whatever reasons, has failed for the last three years to commit the necessary forces to control the territory of Iraq; which has allowed various groups to operate towards disrupting the development of a stable Iraqi state.

Individual Level (Looking at the human factor – both as a species and as individuals)

The majority of Iraqis are Muslim Arabs. There is a significant number of non-Arabs (Kurds) in the geographic north of Iraq who were subject to ethnic discrimination by the Arabs under Saddam Hussein. There is also a sectarian (religious) schism between the Shi’a Muslims and the Sunni Muslims. Their common heritage of the last nine centuries includes extreme opposition to European invasion and occupation.

The Iraqis have struggled to elect a government, which has fought over how to govern. In the power vacuum after the invasion, the Iraqi people have sought cognitive consistency by embracing their various ethnic and religious heritages more strongly than the secularism the U.S. administration had hoped for. This has led to the increase of violence between the Muslim sects within Iraq and the further seperation of the ethnic Kurds; both of which have arguably been egged on by the efforts of al-Qaeda and possibly other non-Iraqi groups.

The strongest popular Muslim leader in Iraq today is an Imam, Muqtada Al-Sadr, who is not an elected member of the Iraqi government.

Iraq’s elected Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has stated recently that he wants more authority under the U.S. occupation in order to control the violence in Iraq.

President Bush remains committed to seeing Iraq evolve into a stable democracy.

My Conclusion

The U.S. must commit the level of military force necessary to control the entire territory of the state and clear it of any other military or para-military forces in order for the new state to take hold. This is in the U.S. national interest as well as the interest of most states (”the spice/oil must flow”) and it is the only viable way for the existing Iraqi state to survive.

If the U.S. withdraws before stopping the violence completely, the entire territory of Iraq becomes more violent with territorial and religious war; open to entry by any number of actors.

“That Iraq Report [is] More of the Same” but still, nobody is doing anything about it- especially our President. President Bush may be a “lame duck” already, but he is still hoping he could revive his reputation. Bush’s solution: a bipartisan study group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, to assess the war- a civil war that the U.S. is fighting for no purpose.
Henry Kissinger said, “The war is unwinnable”. But, it is not our war to win anyway. The only thing possible to “win” now is some dignity; having a bipartisan group of politicians analyze the war does not exactly fit that mold. Many of these politicians, including Baker and Hamilton, went to the sight of war only once and most may not even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. They were chosen to find an alternative solution to an unwinnable war- and make Bush look good. They might be “bipartisan” but if you look at the guy who chose them, he’s a Republican who needs a slight ego boost. If Bush wants to up his reputation, he would react accordingly to the citizens’ responses to the study group report. But, really, he doesn’t have to do anything. He hired this group to analyze the situation for nine months, so that he “might” listen to them, or he might not.
We’ve been fighting this war for what seems like forever and you still don’t want to pull out? Here’s a solution Bush: “The war is unwinnable”, and so is your reputation.

Yes Bush & company are criminals and IMPEACHMENT is the RIGHT THING and IMPRISONMENT also!!!
Yet, the Iraq war can and should be stopped. The only way to stop the violence is with strength. This requires a strong leader and a loyal army. The only place an adequate army exists is in the U.S.

Is one of our general officers up to the task?

We’d have had better chances 4 years ago… with Shinseki’s “several hundred thousand troops” that he stated were necessary to achieve any control of Iraq. Now the situation calls for at least half a million troops.

Maybe I can give you the help on your term papers I never got. I was too stupid to check the internet until I graduated.

The Iraq problem is not new, it has existed ever since Winstin Churchill created the state itself. The basic problem has been the conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnis: these are groups that historically hate each other and will fight till death or until some strongman represses one side or the other. The U.S.’s present plan is to install a strongman who will do just that.

This plan will not work because the Shiite genie has been let out of the bottle in Iraq; the long oppressed Shiite population will simply not allow themselves to be dominated by the Sunnis any longer.

The U.S. will not back a strongman who will oppress the Sunnis because of both Iran and Saudi Arabia: Iran is Shiite and will gain if the Iraqi government turns predominantely Shiite and Saudi Arabia is Sunni and will lose out if an Iraqi strongman begins repressing the Sunni population (Bush is quite close to Saudi Arabia).

The answer is to partition the country and to dig for enough oil so that both territories have the means to sustain themselves. There is no real downside to this arrangement other than that it hurts Bush’s pride and that it hurts Israel’s position, neither of which are relevant if you are an American.

the word on the Sunni position is obviously true. Do we have a responsibility, to the people in Iraq, to forestall more violence?
Is it inour interest to keep the oil flowing to the market?
How do we accomplish these two things?

The invasion of Iraq was WRONG. But it happened. How do we make the country better? Should we abandon it to its own people? Won’t they soon be inundated with even more violence? by more outsiders? Perhaps an invasion by Iran? Iran would probably act through proxies. Bin Laden’s group would probably quintuple down…

I really enjoy reading matt taibbi’s articles… I make a point of checking out everything he writes…its refreshing to hear such an irreverent, foulmouthed, cynic fling vicious barbs at absolutely every pig in the political arena. Thank you matt for giving the bastards a good what-for!!!