Options, options, everywhere …

It looks like the troops will stay for some yet undetermined time so part of the question should also be what should they be doing to best advanatage.

I’m not so convinced that the US and UK could have reached an international consensus had they bided their time. The chief opponents of invasion were Russia, China and France and they all opposed the pre-invasion sanctions and no-fly zones that kept Saddam hemned in. Their motives were economic rather than humanitarian. If there is valid criticism of the US for ignoring human rights in favour of business then this applies more so to these countries.

There’s a chance that Clinton could have swayed Chirac but Chirac’s motives are largely a product of France’s long standing Gaulist anatagonism to US power.

Neil, I think that what Daniel met was that the Bush administration was not seeking an international consensus, just a fig leaf (‘coalition of the billing’). Bush didn’t care what Americans not in his base thought, let alone what foreigners thought.

To my mind, every extra day you spend in Iraq is a
day that you don’t have troops available for some
other crisis where they could either a) do a lot of
good (e.g. Darfur) or b) deter/avoid disaster.
And that’s the big flaw in the “if we hang around
in Iraq it might get better” theory (apart from the
fact that we’ve been hanging around for 2 years
and it’s been getting worse, which suggests that
leaving now would be good, leaving a year ago
would be even better, and staying home the whole
time would have been best of all).

Or to put this another way, before we went into
Iraq nobody was saying “we’ve got 300K troops
that we don’t really need for anything”. And
yet now the story seems to be that it doesn’t
hurt our non-Iraq security interests to have 300K
troops dedicated to that (150K in Iraq, 150K
recovering or preparing to go).

Now frankly, for myself, I think the US could get
along just fine without those troops – Canada and
Mexico are both friendly and weak, Russia’s
military is in disrepair, no-one else can even
reach the US in numbers, let alone cause trouble
once they get there. But that’s very much a
minority view. Logically, if you think it was
worth having those troops before, then you’ve got
to believe it’s a big gamble to *not* have them
now.

But most discussions about Iraq seem to require
that you check your brain at the door on the way
in …

barry, I see what you mean. But then I’m unsure of what Daniel means by “political consensus in favour of action” – is that a consensus amongst governments or populations?

But the status quo is never actually a status quo – change is occuring. There was a dynamic of France etc campaigning against sanctions, Saddam using the sanctions as propaganda within the Arab world and contuniually challanging the no-fly zones. That’s not necessarily an argument for the War Then but does suggest that the situation was unstable and at some point a more permanent solution would have to be found.

My impression on the This War Now argument was that it was only the massive US and UK military buildup that had forced Saddam to comply with UN inspections. That build up could not last forever and once it had gone Saddam would continue his cat and mouse games. So what, another massiev build up of troops? Another partial compliance? and so on.

>So what, another massiev build up of troops? Another partial compliance? and so on

Yeah, fine with me. I don’t know what Saddam’s life expectancy was, but it hardly seems sane to think that we couldn’t outlast him at this.

Of course, once the ground was found to be clear of WMDs we could have offered him a carrot now and again, y’know? His big deal was to be Saladin. Well, Iran pretty much put paid to that. So he notched it down to the Great Avenger of his people — whether Kuwait was sucking Iraq’s oil or not, he presented himself as returning what was rightfully Iraqi.

That didn’t go so well, either.

Then we took over his airspace, allowing the Kurds to jeer and moon him at will.

At this point, the very offer to stop humiliating him and let him play Benevolent Ruler (with a hell of a lot of restrictions, on the torturing stuff and all that) probably would have been pretty attractive to him, as long as we kept it on the QT.

And he might have been able to round up — imagine this — an Arabic translator or two and a couple of guys that could infiltrate Al Queda. Know anybody who would find that useful? Hmmmm…

It would be like owning a badly-bred pit bull, lots of ups and downs and you gotta watch the situation like a hawk, but it’s better than this disaster.

And this disaster was predicted.

It’s pretty easy to think like a megalomaniac, their I/O maps are actually pretty simple. Apparently the only people who don’t understand them are other megalomaniacs (cough, Cheney, cough).

I know this is a crazy barmy idea, but here me out. Perhaps….given that (we are now told) this war was to promote democracy and all…perhaps…we should like…ask the Iraqi people whether they want us to stay or not? Via a referendum?

Ha ha ha! Only joking of course. Given that the chances of the Iraqis being given a chance to have a say in their own future are close to zero, let’s go back to living in the real world. What I would say is that, just as I pointed out in a previous post that we really need to look hard at the word ‘democracy’, I think we now need to look hard at the word ‘withdrawal’. As someone pointed out (in ‘The Nation’ I think it was) when the ‘really radical’ ‘left wing’ ‘extremist’ Democrats talk about withdrawal they don’t mean the dictionary definition of that word. They don’t mean to withdraw completely in other words. And they certainly don’t think that the United States should stop interfering in the Middle East: to the best of my knowledge, I have heard a grand total of zero people arguing that the US should stop propping up Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, and stop helping its other repellant little friends in the region and permit democratic elections. In fact pointing out that the premier obstacle to democracy in the region is the US is something of a taboo in the media.

So what do we mean by ‘withdrawal’? A situation where most of the ground troops have gone, but the Americans reserve the right to bomb the country as and when they want? A situation where most of the ground troops live apart from the general population in heavily fortified military bases? A situation where American military bases in other countries control and command Iraqi military operations? Or what?

it was only the massive US and UK military buildup that had forced Saddam to comply with UN inspections

UN inspectors were in Iraq until 1998, and upon leaving, declared Iraq to be “effectively disarmed”. Powell and Rice agreed with this assessment in 2000. This was all done without troops massed on the borders.

That build up could not last forever and once it had gone Saddam would continue his cat and mouse games

I don’t believe his cat and mouse games were all that effective… But I also don’t believe that chemical and bio weapons constitute that great a threat, anyway. Nor do I believe that the existence (or failure to “prove” the non-existence of such weapons) was really a reason for the US sanctions. Albright and Clinton have said as much – WMDs were a fig leaf.

Interesting, when the locals figure out the rules of the game, then they can go about nation building while Uncle Sam does the dirty work. Uncle Sam thinks it’s a great strategy, all the while paying the bills. The locals smile and nod and go about spending the money that would otherwise be needed for national security. So, South Korea is still training their security forces (after 50 plus years of training), and not quite ready yet to take over the messy work of security. Japan has a better track record, since 1945 they have come to understand how, as Tom Sawyer knew oh so long ago, how to get someone to paint your fence and think it’s fun! So Uncle Sam just can’t figure out Iraq, by golly, we’re having so much fun painting their fences, but the locals still don’t like us. Why? Maybe because they haven’t yet figured out the name of the game (as both S. Korea and Japan have), how to fleece Uncle Sam and make him think it’s a grand idea.

April 28, 2005
Joongang Ilbo (S. Korea) reported that the Ministry of National Defense said yesterday it will soon draft a plan to put the country’s military on an independent footing, an effort it said would take as long as 20 years. At a briefing for President Roh Moo-hyun, Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said the ministry will submit reforms to the National Assembly by October in order to legislate the road map. According to Mr. Yoon, the plan will include preparations for the US transfer of wartime operational command to the ROK. Aiming to establish independent self-defense capabilities by 2025, the plan will outline conditions and steps needed to reshape the ROK’s readiness, which now depends on the US alliance.

Here’s a thought. We should wait until after the elections this month, and then do what the Iraqi Government asks us to do. If they want us to leave, it’s hard to justify staying. If they want us to stay and help maintain order, it’s probably the least we could do. In either case, it’s not obvious to me that we’d make a better decision on our own.

What definition of ‘anti-war types’ is implied by unambiguously opposing an elected government in Iraq, at external and internal peace, that just happens to have a security relationship with america?

Can ‘anti-war types’ be similarly expected to oppose the situations in South Korea, Taiwan, West Germany-as-was?

That word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

soru

It’s quite clear, though, that the current elected government in Iraq (with ‘security relationship with america’) has been doing much more harm to Iraq (not to mention America) than the pre-war Saddam-led Baath government.

Some people you don’t argue with, some people you point at and laugh.

soru

Soru, I think the reason you don’t argue with some is because you’re a bit too dogmatic. When you hear some saying that ‘elected’ is not the same as ‘sacrosanct’ or that the offical friends may not be any better than official enemies, your only reaction is to point at and laugh. And that’s only one of your shortcomings.

‘Would you consider it fair comment to say that you are more concerned with movement on the second axis (anti-imperialism) than you are on the first (internationalism)?’

What has what I think about anything got to do with it (or anything for that matter)? The salient fact is that for various socio-economic factors and reasons of history, people in the Middle East and South American have a very different view of what American power means from people in Western Europe, North American and Australasia. Now it is simply a fact that whereas American bases in Britain and Germany don’t cause much annoyance (and at least during the Cold War were probably welcomed) in the Middle East, they are associated with Western Imperialism (and with good reason, if you look at the history of that region).

So the much vaunted comparison of Iraq with West Germany and Japan won’t hold. It is astonishingly, vanishingly unlikely that any elected Iraqi government that is in any sense representative of the view of the Iraqi people will tolerate long term American bases. Nor will any government that is perceived as being friendly to US interests be looked upon kindly, for precisely the same reason that any political party in, say, Poland or the Czech republic that is seen to lean towards Russia will stand much of a chance of being elected (or holding power for long if it does get elected). And the fact that both Russia and the US are democracies won’t matter. In the middle east, the US is seen as playing a similar role to that which Russia played in Eastern Europe after WW2: i.e. as the dominant, imperial anti-democratic power.

The key point is not what non-Arab speaking, non-Iraqis like me and you think about anything. The point is that according to opinion poll data, most Iraqis want an immediate ( and total ) withdrawal of US/UK forces. The other salient point is that most American and British people think the same (i.e. they want a total pullout after December 15th). The depressing fact is that in the US no electable political party is prepared to offer that option. As I pointed out above, the Democratic party’s Damascene conversion to ‘withdrawal’ is nothing of the sort: they offer instead redeployment of forces. But (to the best of my knowledge) no American politician is prepared to stand up and say, as of December 15th Iraq is a democracy and therefore if they want a total US withdrawal of all US forces, then that’s what we will have to do. And in Britain neither of the two major political parties are prepared to offer that option either.

Incidentally, as a general rule, ‘lefties’ are inclined to say that the ‘best’ places to live are the Scandinavian countries Denmark, Sweden, Norway etc., countries which not even a black hearted cynic like myself would describe as being in the slightest bit beholden to the US. The American right loathe and despise these countries as is shown by Glenn Reynolds’ periodic attempts to misuse statistics and show that Sweden is ‘really’ worse off than Somalia (or whatever).Cf here .

Puerto Rico->Iraq->Saudi Arabia->Taiwan->Germany->France->Switzerland->Norway

And in Britain neither of the two major political parties are prepared to offer that option either.

I can guarantee you that the Labour party is offering precisely that.

It’s just that they are talking about _achieving_ it, not _conceding_ it.

The question for anyone in deciding which ‘side’ they personally should be on is what is more important to them, as an individual – the perceived defeat of Bush/Blair, or the actual future of all countries involved.

soru

“despite Iraq being (as of very recently) formally freer and more democratic.”

On paper. Not in reality.

Iraqis are not “free” in any meaningful sense when their alleged rights can be trampled with impunity by foreign contractors, insurgent groups, US and Iraq soldiers, militia groups, police, etc.

I can put an ad in the paper declaring that I am a trillionaire, but that doesn’t mean much if the rest of the world doesn’t play along.

“…Aiming to establish independent self-defense capabilities by 2025, the plan will outline conditions and steps needed to reshape the ROK’s readiness, which now depends on the US alliance.”

Thanks to bro bartleby for this quote in his recent comment. For me this is an astounding insight into the magnitude of the commitment we seem to be making in Iraq. I wonder how most Americans would react to an Administration statement clarifying that the long haul in Iraq might run through the balance of this century.
In truth, in the world of “real politic” we seem to have set a course that commits troops to Iraq for as long as we have had troops in Germany. We just haven’t awakened to that fact.
I have yet to hear a statement from the Administration that the US would leave if asked by the Iraqis. The Iraqis seem to have no role in declaring their forces “ready to stand up so that we can stand down.”

‘I wonder how most Americans would react to an Administration statement clarifying that the long haul in Iraq might run through the balance of this century.’

Yeah but that’s the point. You see what Bush and Blair etc. are up to, not by looking at what they do say but what they don’t.

For example (as was widely pointed out in the UK media), despite the tremendous air of self-righteousness, and the ‘how dare you ask me these things’, Condi Rice, in her recent statements, never actually DENIED the facts of ‘extraordinary rendition’ (in fact commentators pointed out that her statement had almost certainly been co-written with international lawyers, such that, when the nasty realities became clear, she could always claim she wasn’t lying).

In the same way, as I pointed out above, Bush and Blair have NEVER at any point (so far as I know) even discussed the possibility of a TOTAL withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq. They do sometimes talk about ‘withdrawal’ but it is clear that what they really mean by that word is actually ‘redeployment’. Same as when the Democrats talk about ‘withdrawal’.

‘Twas ever thus. I remember reading an article in (I think) History Today reasonably recently that argued that, contrary to what some commentators have argued, the reason that most British 19th century literature doesn’t really mention the Empire or Imperialism is that, to an amazing extent, most people in the working and even the middle classes didn’t really know it was happening. The media of the day raraly described clearly the slow, incremental, territorial gains that the Empire was making, and never explained the context (let alone the economic context) in which this was occurred. In fact, the only times that the facts of the Empire were brought to public awarenesss was when ‘they’ (for, according the British media, absolutely no reason) struck back against ‘us’, and therefore had to be punished. This discourse was usually saturated in ‘Orientalist’ or even racist sterotypes (as is our own perceptions of the Iraqi insurgency).

Likewise, even until the 1960s, explicitly colonial activities in Aden and Oman were simply kept out of the media by a complacent and conformist class of journalists.

In the same way: what, exactly is going on in Afghanistan? I don’t know, neither do you. The facts are rarely, if ever reported. We know there are American troops there. What are they doing there? We are not told.

What Blush and Bair would like to happen is that the insurgency is defeated and Iraq is dropped from the front pages of the newspapers and the headlines on the evening news, such that, far removed from the public gaze, they can get on with whatever their plans were in the first place.

But of course, the public has to be kept in the dark about all this: firstly by simply censorship (via omission) as in Afghanistan, and secondly by witholding context (especially the historial and socio-economic context) such that when ‘they’ strike back at us, ‘their’ actions are perceived as being ‘irrational’ and ‘barbaric’ as opposed to our own well reasoned wars for democracy and such like.

In the same way: what, exactly is going on in Afghanistan? I don’t know, neither do you.

Yes, but we do know that in the end it’s all done for ’em savages’ own good. As Bro. Bartleby says, they’ve long learned how fleece Uncle Sam, bastards.

After all, our leaders are practicing Christians, they just love helping people in far-away lands and they don’t ask for anything in return. They do it for the sake of freedom and democracy.

“that a utilitarian calculus has to be aware of the paths that have led up to the situation in which the calculus is made in order to have information over which to calculate.”
A sentence like that could rip a hole in the entire space-time continuum. Careful.

But how is waiting auto-magically bad? Major milestones in Iraqi Democracy are coming up. And a true utilitarian calculus would see that there is zero chance of the US pulling out of Iraq. And continued argument for a pullout is giving fodder to the media which only adds fuel to the flame and dampens any good effect the new elections might have.

So if you are a true utilitarian, face the facts and stop strengthening the Vietcong insurgent belief in an early US withdrawal if only they can stay away from a political solution and keep up the attacks.

To the extent that that population feels that the Arab League agreement on a timetable of withdrawal is actually heard by the Americans

You are aware that that meeting called for a timetable for withdrawl _at some indefinite point in the future_?

As jet implied, a process of compromise and negotiation between the relevant factions will work best in an unambiguous security situation, one that denies anyone the option of thinking ‘one more push, over the top one more time’.

And one of the things that is and should be absolutely unambiguous is that the troops will be, when the time comes and those negotiations conclude successfully, going. And, equally important, that that should count as withdrawl, whatever far-left theorists of imperialism say about any remaining economic, cultural and strategic ties.

But, perhaps I am wrong, and they are right, and the problem with North Korea is it is too americanised, and Pol Pot wasn’t thorough enough in his purges of western influence, failed to be ruthless enough to actually acheive true ‘authenticity’.

soru

Soru, apart from your ramblings about Pol Pot (do you actually want me to remind you of Margaret Thatcher’s statement about “reasonable Khmer Rouge”?) you would be better off reading what Jet actually said, rather than cherry picking. To be absolutely and genuinely fair, the extreme right in the US have always beein perfectly clear about their plans in Iraq, although, mysteriously, the pro-invasion Left tend to have their hearing aids turned off when they are speaking.

Jet says: ‘And a true utilitarian calculus would see that there is zero chance of the US pulling out of Iraq.’

Unlike what the majority of the cliches spouted by the ‘pro invasion left’ this has the benefit of being clear and being true. There is no plan to pull US troops out of Iraq. To be absolutely fair to George Bush, he has never, at any point, actually stated that he has any intentions to pull all US troops out of Iraq.

You know, you have to be a bit savvy (not much, just a bit) about what politicians and others in the media say. When David Beckham had his spot of bother with Rebecca Loos, most people knew it was true when, despite all the rhetoric and anger, and ‘You have hurt my family’ etc. he never actually denied it .

Likewise. Bush is well aware that the charge sheet against him is that he has no intentions of leaving Iraq. And, again, he has never denied it . What he has stated is that he cannot leave while the insurgency is still going on, but he has never, EVER, then gone on to state that when the insurgency is crushed that he will leave THEN.

Most sensible cynics will conclude that he has, therefore, no intentions of leaving, and they are right.

The pro-invasion left have hyperventilated (to coin a Chris Morris-ism) on the oxygen of war, and have deluded themselves that Bush and Blair, somewhere, in some language, promised a complete withdrawal when Iraq was a democracy. But they didn’t. Look up every speech they have ever made if you don’t believe me. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out at the time (“Bush has given you an Empire, if you can keep it”), Iraq was always intended to be an American colony, in the same way that Lebanon was intended to be a Syrian colony.

Whether this plan will work: whether the US will actually be able to stay is of course another question.

Iraq was always intended to be an American colony

and

looming cultural imperialism after the complete withdrawal.

Those two points need to be addressed together.

The smarter idiots like brendan do seem to have figured out that, in military and political terms, the war is almost certain to be won by the Shi’a and their Kurdish and coalition allies. From that perspective, it’s been over a year since there was any serious bad news at the strategic level. There’s time for perhaps one more ‘Battle of the Bulge’ type offensive, but to all intents and purposes the war, if not the fighting, is over. Insurgencies are like the proverbial sharks – if they don’t move forwards, they die.

So, in order to downplay the impact of that pending victory, they need to claim it is something other than what it would appear to be.

The best way of doing that is to pretend that the intentions of the US were something other than what they were – that they indended to make Iraq a colony, and have been prevented from doing so by the stalwart Iraqi resistance.

On the face of it, that’s ludicrous, but here’s the clever bit – they use a definition of the word ‘colony’ from economic theory that means something other than the everyday meaning (rather like Rice talking about ‘torture’). So they can say that with a straight face, and fool at least some people (although abb1 is quite right if his implicit point is that that really won’t be an argument listened to by many mainstream US voters).

The same logic applies to ‘complete withdrawl’ – when they say that, you need to ask exactly what they mean by it. If there are US, or US-trained Nepalese, mercenaries, is that still complete? A larger than normal embasssy? Any embassay? Arms deals? Extradition agreements? Military aid? Cooperation on anti-terrorism operations? Oil exports? US drafted laws? Laws drafted by US-trained lawyers?

Absent an Iraqi Pol Pot, there will always be a way some are able to say, with a straight face, that any apparent withdrawl is not ‘total’, and so they were right all along.

Now, one thing Brendan said that is quite correct is that, partly for historical and cultural reasons, but mostly because of the events of the last 2 years, the actual presence of US troops (at least outside Kurdish regions) will not be acceptable to the locals unless they saw it as absolutely necessary. Bases that had no immediate and unquestionable purpose (like Germany, and unlike South Korea), were merely convenient and cheap, would cause 10x the trouble that they could possibly guard against.

Now, he knows that, I know that, so unless Khalilzad is significantly stupider or less knowledgable than either of us, or specifically wants to keep 2/3 of the US army tied down and being shot at, it is a safe assumption they won’t be used once they are no longer necessary.

Was WWII retrospectively lost when de Gaulle kicked all US bases off french soil?

soru

Iraqis know this, and they know how short lived was their genuine independence before the Ba’ath (with the help of the US) crushed these efforts.

In attempting to decode this statement, the key thing is to understand the meaning of the word ‘Iraqi’ used here. Of course, it is not the normal, everyday one of ‘person who lives in Iraq, or was brought up there’, it’s a specialist technical meaning, something like ‘true, authentic, non-puppet nationalist’.

It’s quite a clever trick, because then you can say whatever you want, and claim to speak with the voice of the Iraqi people, on the basis ‘well, there’s some people in Iraq who agree with me, and those who don’t aren’t _real_ Iraqis’.

Hopefully when you ventriloquise the inhabitants of Iraq that way, you are simply being deliberately dishonest. I would hate to think that you were so genuinely deluded that you mistake your world-spanning theorisation, a template that can be made to apply to any country in the world with a simple search and replace of some details, with the aggregate opinions and behaviour of actual people in one particular country with one particular history?

soru

Well actually, given the salient point about American occupation of their country, according to opinion poll data (which you don’t quote, understandably enough), almost all Iraqis agree with me not you.

Except that for the poll in question, just about uniquely, the actual questions asked was not published. This provides a great blank space on which you can write any view you want, including the one that what really gets Iraqi’s goat is the nature of the relationship of Nuri Al-Sa’ids government with imperial britain back in the 1950s.

It’s not 1967 any more. Things that were true need to be reality checked now, to find out if they still are the case.

why aren’t you calling for a national referendum on the American occupation?

Because that is as redundant as a referendum in whether 2 + 2 = 4. Of course the occupation is going to end, you are the only one in this discussion claiming otherwise, and only then by radically redefining the word.

There’s an election next week. If 80% really do share your antipathy for any kind of interaction on any terms between the west and Iraq, then is it not possible a candidate sharing your views will do rather well?

Want to get your excuses in in advance for why that won’t happen?

soru

I am still waiting for quotes from Bush or Blair in which they state that after peace has been brought to Iraq there will be a total withdrawal of US/UK troops. If you can’t find one, I will infer that this is because there is, in fact, no such plan for a withdrawal.

Yes, using your fantasy definition of ‘total withdrawl’.

Colonialist conspiracy theories aside, you can find largely the same analysis of the situation in Iraq here:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/dean-v.html#comments

I could pick nits (it doesn’t really takes 5 years to train an army to beat insurgents), but the real difference is the slightly different US domestic political spin, about which I could care less than nothing.

If anything, perhaps putting things Juan Cole’s way will persuade people allergic to any idea they perceive as associated with the current US government.

soru

THERE’S AN ‘A’ IN WITHDRAWAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe that’s what you mean? That when Bush and Blair talk about withdrawal they mean withdrawl? Or vice versa? Is withdrawl code for something?

In any case a quick google search for ‘Bush’ and ‘withdrawal’ (spelt correctly) will quickly demonstrate that (to the best of my knowledge and I am perfectly happy to stand corrected on this matter) Bush has never stated that he will withdraw (withdrw?) from Iraq.

Headlines like:

‘Bush Rejects Calls for Iraq Withdrawal ‘

‘Cheney Says Withdrawal From Iraq ‘Unwise’ ‘

And so forth tell their own story.

I did find one story that seemed to promise an American withdrawal here but on further analysis the article went on to state: ‘Throughout his speech on Wednesday, he tried to balance a tone of steadfastness with hints of optimism that a troop drawdown could begin next year. “We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory,” he said, seeming to echo Winston Churchill, whose bust he keeps in the Oval Office.

But at another point he said that while the strategy was intended to help Iraqis take the lead in the fight within their country, his hope was that they would do so without “major” foreign assistance. That suggested some form of continuing American presence..

Mr. Bush did not say how long that might last, though some of his aides point to South Korea, the Balkans and other places where some American presence remains years after the conflict is over .’

So unless the aides have broken open Bush’s old bottles of Jim Beam and toke a few lines of Bush’s old Columbian marching powder: in other words, assuming that the aides were primed by Bush, they are saying what he wants them to say: in other words, they are saying what he means.

In other words, no withdrawal for half a century, maybe more.

But wait! What is this! Bush calls for withdrawal!

Ah no…you see…he meant withdrawal from Lebanon, by Syria.

What would his reaction have been if Syria had stated they planned to have bases in Lebanon for fifty years?

What would your reaction have been, Soru?

What would your reaction to that have been if you were a proud Lebanese patriot?

And what would your reaction have been as a Czech or Slovakian patriot, if Russia announced it was going to keep military bases in your country (YOUR COUNTRY) for fifty years?

And what do you think proud Iraqis feel about Bush’s boasting that he plans to have bases in the country for fifty years? And that the British will help him? When the British humiliated and occupied your country for more than thirty years?

In any case, unless you can actually back up your statements with actual data, opinion poll data, transcriptions of interviews, official speeches…unless in other words you have some evidence to back up what you claim, this discussion is now over.

What’s that have to do with anything? The sheik has his strategy, Americans have their. The sheik wants democracy, the Bushies want a puppet government, what else is new?