See other War, War, War Articles
Title: IRAQ: WHO'S WINNING, HARRY?
Source:
NY Post
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 26, 2007
Author: AMIR TAHERI
Post Date: 2007-04-26 17:37:20 by BeAChooser
Keywords: None
Views: 162
Comments: 14
IRAQ: WHO'S WINNING, HARRY? By AMIR TAHERI April 26, 2007 -- WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction. Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated. By advancing the claim, Reid has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it. At the same time, Reid has parted ways with Democratic leaders such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supported the war but who now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean, by implication, is that a Democratic president would do better than George W. Bush and win the war. Reid's new position, however, means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq. For him, Iraq is irretrievably lost. Some antiwar analysts have praised Reid for what they term "his clarity of perception." A closer examination, however, would show that Reid might have added to the confusion that has plagued his party over the issue from the start. Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner. This Reid cannot do. The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war. Reid cannot name al Qaeda as the winner, because the terror organization has failed to achieve any of its objectives. It hasn't been able to halt the process of democratization, marked by a string of elections, and it has failed to destroy the still fragile institutions created in the post-Saddam era. Al Qaeda is also suffering from increasing failure to attract new recruits, while coming under pressure from Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes, especially west of the Euphrates. In military terms, al Qaeda hasn't won any territory and has lost the control it briefly exercised in such places as Fallujah and Samarra. More important, al Qaeda has failed to develop a political program, focusing instead on its campaign of mindless terror. What about the remnants of the Saddamite regime? Can Reid name them as victors? Hardly. What's left of the Baath Party has split into four warring factions with rival leaders in exile. The remnants of the Republican Guards have also split. Some have joined Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, now the Loch Ness monster of Iraqi politics. Others have set up crime syndicates and/or death squads with no discernible political ambitions. Reid may believe that Iran, either alone or with its Syrian Sancho Panza, is the victor. If that's the case, Reid shares the illusion peddled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Convinced that the Americans will run away, mostly thanks to political maneuvers by Reid and his friends, Ahmadinejad has gone on the offensive in Iraq and throughout the region. By heightening his profile, he wants to make sure that Iran reaps the fruits of what Reid is sowing in Washington. But even then, it's unlikely that most Iraqis would acknowledge Ahmadinejad as winner and bow to his diktat. The Islamic Republic cannot act as victor solely because Reid says so. It's possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war's loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq. That Reid is desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory isn't surprising. His party requires an American defeat in Iraq in order to win the congressional and presidential elections next year. What is generically known as "the war" is, in fact, three wars. The first war was about changing the status quo in Iraq. America won by destroying Saddam's regime, ending Baghdad's stand-off with the United Nations and establishing that Iraq was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Victory in that war was achieved in 2003 with the completion of the U.S.-led investigation into Iraq's alleged WMD programs. The second war was triggered by forces that wanted to prevent America from creating a new status quo that favored its interests along with the interests of a majority of Iraqis. This second war also ended in victory for America and its allies with the holding of free elections and, eventually, the emergence of a democratic Iraqi government in 2006. The third and current war started toward the end of last year when the disparate forces fighting against the democratic government found a new point of convergence in a quest for driving America out. The Bush administration understood this and responded with its "surge" policy by dispatching more troops to Baghdad. Unlike the two previous wars in which anti-American forces pursued a variety of goals, their sole aim this time is to drive the Americans out. In that sense, al Qaeda and other Islamist agents in Iraq have forged an unofficial alliance with residual Saddamites, criminal gangs, pan-Shiite chauvinists and small groups of Iraqis who fight out of genuine nationalistic but misguided motives. Despite continued violence, America and its Iraqi allies are winning this third war, too. Their enemies are like the man in a casino who wins a heap of tokens at the roulette table, but is told at the cashier that those cannot be exchanged for real money. The terrorists, the insurgents, the criminal gangs and the chauvinists of all ilk are still killing many people. But they cannot translate those killings into political gains. Their constituencies are shrinking, and the pockets of territory where they hide are becoming increasingly exposed. They certainly cannot drive the Americans out. No power on earth can. Unless, of course, Harry Reid does it for them. Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri is based in Europe.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BeAChooser (#0)
The losers are the American taxpayers even unto the third and fourth generations who are now and will be paying for this debacle. He left out the biggest winner of all - a corporation called Halliburton.
The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free government. - Sam Houston
Taheri is a neocon shill. We've seen his work previously and identified him as such. Nice try at obfuscation, BAC, but you can't win here. We've got your number.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
pfftt, another Benador war-pimp fraud.
of course, would you expect the evil bushbot (or as Nostalgia calls him, succubus) to post anything else?
Just to demonstrate how silly your arguments are: *********** http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/defending_halliburton/ Following up on this post, there’s more debunking of the Halliburton overcharge myth, this time in the New York Times. *********** To better understand WHY Halliburton was chosen: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004417.php "Halliburton & Defense Contracting, Part 3/3" http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/working_in_iraq.html " The Reality of Working For Halliburton In Iraq: You Don't Read This In Our Media..." Now the price of Halliburton stock rose from about $13 in January 2003 to a peak of $39 in mid-2005, a 300 percent increase. Since then, it has declined to about $32 per share. Halliburton is on the NY stock exchange. How does that stock price increase compare with what the NYSE has performed in general? In January of 2003, the NYSE Composite index (consisting of over 2000 US and non US stocks) was at (see http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/composite_brochure.pdf ) 4500. In mid 2005, it was at about 7500. Today, the index is at 9700. So Halliburton's stock is currently doing about 50% better then the average stock on the NYSE. Not all that remarkable. Afterall, one can easily name hundreds of companies on that exchange that have done just as well or even better. And have not had to take near the risks that Halliburton had to take. How about looking at just the sector of the market that Halliburton is in. PHLX is a price weighted index composed of 15 companies (I believe Halliburton is one of them) that provide oil drilling and production services, oil field equipment, support services and geophysical/resevoir services. The index's value in January 2003 was about 80 (http://www.phlx.com/market/advcharts.asp?SYMBOL=OSX ). In mid 2005 it was 150. And currently it is 225. So up until mid 2005, Halliburton stock was doing about 50 percent better than its average competitor. Since then however, Halliburton has been flat while the competitors have done great. Their stocks today have increased almost as much a Halliburton's. And have they taken the risks and suffered the deaths that Halliburton has? So why single out Halliburton?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Beach Hoser, I can answer that question, which of late you Bush war whores think suddenly changes reality. Here is who is winning: Globalists Munitions and Armaments manufacturers Halliburton Mercenaries The Carlyle Group Big Pharm Fascists People who want to impose martial law on America People who want to rape our Constitution for their own power Big Oil and, of course, The Bush Crime Family That's a short list. I'm sure I've left some out. Thanks for lobbing me a fat pitch down the middle, sucker.
BAC, leave it to you to re-package "winners" and "losers." You're not getting any smarter - and you never fail to advance the negative value which measures your due respect. What's your creed? "Totally fucked up; and proud of it!" You give queers a REALLY bad name, BAC. That's not an easy accomplishment. The Bush Cabal went off on a War Crime invasion - that's as "loser" as it gets. How long do you think its going to be, until America has to start paying War Crime reparations to Afghanistan and Iraq? Thanks to people such as you, BAC, America lost a set of wars which NEVER should have been attempted.
----- This "democratic Iraqi government" cannot emerge from the U.S. controlled Green Zone. This "democratic Iraqi government" cannot even control where the U.S. forces decide to wall off Iraqi communities against the will of said "democratic Iraqi government." This "democratic Iraqi government" controls nothing, not even the little Green Zone that in which it is hunkered down. ----- Before they can fight against "the democratic government" they will have to fight their way into the Green Zone. There is not one battalion of Iraqi troops able to stand up on its own and be trusted to defend anything. Other than a few politicians meeting in the Green Zone, of what does "the democratic government" of Iraq consist? If this is a functioning "democratic government," what has it done? (Other than trying to give Iraq's mineral rights to multi-national corporations.) ----- BAC has discovered an unending string of victories from 2003 thru 2006. One more great victory and Bush will get a commission as a Field Marshal.
Ooser and his/her/it's ilk can pay them. I HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT contribute one cent to the shit. PERIOD!!! I'll die or rot in jail first. I refuse to pay to be a slave to their ignorant whims.
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
Yeah, you did forget 1 - China And here's who's losing: And soon to be: Iranians If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
That's got to be a step up from this... "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
So if we lost, who won, NC?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
What's with this "we" shit, hooknose?
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
The Republican Party isn't opposed to homosexuality, apparently. Only ADMITTING it. Every time I see one of their spokesqueers on TV, I wonder "are ANY of them NOT gay?!
#2. To: BeAChooser (#0)
(Edited)
AMIR TAHERI
#3. To: BTP Holdings (#2)
Taheri is a neocon shill
#4. To: BTP Holdings (#2)
neocon shill.
#5. To: Sam Houston, ALL (#1)
He left out the biggest winner of all - a corporation called Halliburton.
The rebuilding of Iraq’s oil industry has been characterized in the months since by increasing costs and scant public explanation. An examination of what has grown into a multibillion-dollar contract to restore Iraq’s oil infrastructure shows no evidence of profiteering by Halliburton, the Houston-based oil services company, but it does demonstrate a struggle between price controls and the uncertainties of war, with price controls frequently losing. ...
So far this year, Halliburton’s profits from Iraq have been minimal. The company’s latest report to the Securities and Exchange Commission shows $1.3 billion in revenues from work in Iraq and $46 million in pretax profits for the first nine months of 2003. But its profit may grow once the Pentagon completes a formal evaluation of the work. If the government is satisfied, Halliburton is entitled to a performance fee of up to 5 percent of the contract’s entire value, which could mean additional payments of $100 million or more. ...
#6. To: BeAChooser (#0)
IRAQ: WHO'S WINNING, HARRY?
#7. To: beachooser, Christine, Jethro Tull, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#0)
#8. To: BeAChooser (#0)
The first war was about changing the status quo in Iraq. America won by destroying Saddam's regime, ending Baghdad's stand-off with the United Nations and establishing that Iraq was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Victory in that war was achieved in 2003 with the completion of the U.S.-led investigation into Iraq's alleged WMD programs.
The second war was triggered by forces that wanted to prevent America from creating a new status quo that favored its interests along with the interests of a majority of Iraqis. This second war also ended in victory for America and its allies with the holding of free elections and, eventually, the emergence of a democratic Iraqi government in 2006.
The third and current war started toward the end of last year when the disparate forces fighting against the democratic government found a new point of convergence in a quest for driving America out. The Bush administration understood this and responded with its "surge" policy by dispatching more troops to Baghdad.
#9. To: SKYDRIFTER (#7)
How long do you think its going to be, until America has to start paying War Crime reparations to Afghanistan and Iraq?
#10. To: Paul Revere (#6)
Here is who is winning:
Amerikans
Iraquis
Afghanis
Venezuelans
Syrians
Lebanese (again)
#11. To: nolu_chan (#8)
One more great victory and Bush will get a commission as a Field Marshal.
#12. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#8)
#13. To: BeAChooser (#12)
#14. To: SKYDRIFTER (#7)
You give queers a REALLY bad name, BAC.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest