posted on August 14, 2005 08:19:26 AM new
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says
By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A01
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.
Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by a deadline of tomorrow so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.
But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how the initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.
Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.
U.S. officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. "It happened rather gradually," said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to U.S. personnel changes in Baghdad.
The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.
But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.
posted on August 14, 2005 08:42:30 AM new
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Invading Iraq was a terrible mistake and it has caused turmoil and extreme danger for everyone worldwide. Bush was warned before the invasion but he didn't listen which shows what an incompetant leader he is and what a huge danger he is to everyone. Hopefully he has some handlers that can keep him under control before he does more stupid and rash actions that have even more serious consequences.
posted on August 14, 2005 08:53:20 AM new
LOL....that's from the WA Post?
Not ONE 'U.S. Official' quoted....no names of ANY 'U.S. Senior Official' mentioned either - but the easily led will believe anything if it comes from a liberal media source....even when they continue to not name their so-called sources.
typical and very poor journalism. At least have the GUTS to name your sources.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
The Bush administration has misled the country into a no-win war only serving to foment terrorism. What a colossal tragedy of so many good lives wasted by his misjudgement and lack of planning. George Bush will go down in history as the worst president in U.S. history.
posted on August 14, 2005 09:14:47 AM new
It sounds like a much more believable source than a fictitious 'Chernoff' blogger who paints a rosy picture of Iraqi reconstruction.
I agree Helen, he will truly go down in history as the worst US president ever, the one who did the most damage to the entire world because of his monumental ignorance.
posted on August 14, 2005 09:58:47 AM newbut the easily led will believe anything if it comes from a liberal media source....
And Linda will believe anything that comes out of Bush's mouth because the man does not lie. LOL
Can you say sockpuppet?
So Linda why don't you post the same article written from a conservative point of view. There must be something in one of the conservative newspapers regarding this
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
[ edited by logansdad on Aug 14, 2005 10:24 AM ]
posted on August 14, 2005 10:08:26 AM new
Oh brother, it's all doom and gloom with you guys. You are all LYING about Bush. He's a sharp cookie that's brought peace and safety to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Once all the terrorists have congregated in Iraq, they'll all be shot and killed, then it'll all be over and they'll be no more war in the Middle East. What don't you guys get about this?
posted on August 14, 2005 10:30:39 AM new "Oh brother, it's all doom and gloom with you guys. You are all LYING about Bush. He's a sharp cookie that's brought peace and safety to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Once all the terrorists have congregated in Iraq, they'll all be shot and killed, then it'll all be over and they'll be no more war in the Middle East. What don't you guys get about this? "
You forgot to add how absolutely delighted the good people of Iraq are that they had the opportunity to "sacrifice" by living throughout the exceedinly hot summer with intermittent electricity and no water....not to mention the opportunity to sacrifice the lives of their friends and family for the imperialistic goal of George Bush. They all say, God Bless Merica? Some day, when the Haliburton guys are done working in the Green Zone they look forward to returning to before war comforts such as water and electricity. They are so thankful, in fact that they have suggested that the Mericans just get the hell out of their country immediately and the work will be done by their countrymen. Bush should not worry about sucking the well AND the banks dry -- just leave.
posted on August 14, 2005 10:56:44 AM new
Get real. As if the citizens of Iraq know how to do things!?! Thank goodness Bush had enough insight to bring on Halliburton to make sure things go as smoothly as they have been. And of course, none of them are concerned about clean water or electricity when Bush saved their lives. Let him gloat - he deserves it!
posted on August 14, 2005 11:02:22 AM newOnce all the terrorists have congregated in Iraq, they'll all be shot and killed, then it'll all be over and they'll be no more war in the Middle East.
Why do we have to shoot and kill them. Why can't we just send a nuclear missile to Iraq and destroy the country. At least we will know there will be peace in the country for 40 years or how ever long it takes for the radiation to disappear.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 14, 2005 11:27:14 AM new
LOL....wrong again, helen....you're record of being wrong AND of not answering questions put to you.....imo, is your way of avoiding saying how you REALLY feel....just how FAR LEFT you REALLY are.
Still haven't answered my question on WHO in our Congress....sides with you in your take on our current policy in regards to both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just WHICH democratic leaders are calling for us to withdraw?
Won't answer again...will ya? I believe it's because you're very much aware that YOUR political positions don't even come CLOSE to most democratic leaders of our Nation. You're nothing more than an extremist.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 14, 2005 11:34:04 AM new
As more of the truth and reality of the situation in Iraq comes to light, the berserk smilies start to proliferate the posts of those who are in denial.
posted on August 14, 2005 01:52:29 PM new
This analysis of a Fascist's beliefs is frighteningly similar to all that the Neocon's profess to believe
Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections.Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
posted on August 14, 2005 02:45:35 PM newAs more of the truth and reality of the situation in Iraq comes to light, the berserk smilies start to proliferate the posts of those who are in denial.
I am waiting for Linda to appear on Oprah and see her bouncing on the couch and express her devotion to Bush and Ann Coulter.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 14, 2005 04:02:15 PM new
It surely is quiet, Mingo.
That list is the sum of all fears for this country now that Bushco is in charge. How can they defend those beliefs and still call themselves Americans?
posted on August 14, 2005 04:13:26 PM new
Ooops, there's a response from Bear....His answer, to "club" the liberals falls under number 3.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
posted on August 14, 2005 04:52:44 PM new
It looks like Iraq is becoming another Muslim state. A state that in some parts of Iraq a barber can be killed for shaving the beard off a man. A country where in some parts of the country a woman can get beaten for not wearing head cover. At least that is what Republican Senator Lugar from Indiana said he found troubling today on CNN today.
The same Senator confirmed that the U.S. no longer expects a western style democracy in Iraq. What the U.S. will get for almost 2,000 dead soldiers with thousands wounded and 200 Billion spent is another Muslim state ruled under Muslim law.
George Bush "worked hard" and "stayed the course" but failed America.
I can remember just a few months ago after Bush won re-election and the republicans took control of both houses. The republicans were dancing in the streets.
Now the only dancing I see is from republican Senators. Many are doing the old one step two step trying to distance themselves from Bush and the wacko right wing in their party. They realize the 2006 elections are coming up. But America will remember their names and what they did to America this time around. Some will be defeated in 2006.
Pennsylvania republican Senator Rick Santorum is not only dancing but flip flopping like a fish out of water.
posted on August 14, 2005 05:43:40 PM new
Ah look Bear has some bumper stickers and no car to put them on. Either the state took away his license or the cost of gas is too much for him.
Maybe we can still find a place for his bumper sticks on the back of his wheel chair.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 14, 2005 06:00:03 PM newOoops, there's a response from Bear....His answer, to "club" the liberals falls under number 3.
So, you're volunteering to be first? Or are you trying to get craw to go first.
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
