Post-Surge Violence

What's John McCain's answer to this? Surge II: The Sequel?

Female bombers struck Kurdish political protesters in Kirkuk and Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad on Monday morning, leaving at least 48 people dead and 249 wounded in one of the bloodiest sequences of attacks in Iraq this year.... In the attacks in Baghdad, three women used suicide vests and a bomb in a bag to make strikes just minutes apart, killing 24 people, all apparently Shiite pilgrims marching in a festival, according to an official at the Interior Ministry.

< DOJ Releases Report on Political Hiring | The New American Exceptionalism: Disdain For The Rule Of Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wait till we withdraw (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    It will be all out civil war.

    I write this not in support of the Surge, which is clearly a failure in its strategic goal - to wit, bring political reconciliation to Iraq, but only as a reminder that there is no good solution for the United States in Iraq.

    The Debacle will leave Iraq in ruins for years and years. and there is nothing we can do about it now.

    The die is cast. It is just a matter of when.

    Didn't Obama say (none / 0) (#14)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    that, if violence increased after we pulled out, we'd go back in?  

    I seem to recall him saying something like that...


    Indeed the die has been cast (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM EST
    There was only one leader strong enough to control the warring factions in Iraq and we hung him. Whether Iraq was better off with or without him becomes more debatable by the day as those that knew no better come to the realization there were and never will be flowers of appreciation for what we have done. We may have stifled a tyrant, but we have also lit a fuse on a powder keg.

    The only thing we can do... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    ...that would be honest, critical and marginally humane is announce we are leaving, apologize for the horrible mistakes we have made, pay massive reparations and have whomever is president make a speech of ten lifetimes along these lines: "The entire world expects and all out civil war and slaughter. Please show the world that you are better than that.  Show the world that you are better than the United States, better than the chest-thumping superpower who put you in this mess.  Show the world that Islam really can be a religion of peace in a time when NOBODY believes you can do it.  Show the world something they have never seen before.  The United States failed, but you can succeed and stick it in right our imperialist faces."  Not that it would change anything.  But it would at least evidence that the new administration, and I'm assuming it's an Obama administration, is a radical departure from the present and past.

    Pipe dream, I know, but rhetoric and hope are all that is really left.


    Or (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    Better yet, turn the US embassy into a giant shopping mall, largest in the world, fully stocked with all the modern conveniences and chachkas, and then give every Iraqi a credit card, good for one year, paid for by the DOD.

    That ought to keep them busy enough to not bother with civil war.

    Visualize world peace.


    I'll take it (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the powers that be have about as much imagination as a hammer.

    Not To Mention (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    That US taxpayers would save a bundle as well. Our money would still be going to corporations, just not to military industrial ones.

    Besides isn't shopping and the right to do it 24/7 what defines the free world, it is the core of US diplomacy.


    When millions of Americans asked.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    "what can I do for my country?" after the 9/11 attacks, what were we told to do?

    That's right, we were told to go shopping.

    May as well do the same for Iraq, give every man, woman, and child 10 grand and wish 'em luck along with our sincerest apologies for using their country as host for the military industrial con, 2003-2008 edition.


    Best idea (none / 0) (#33)
    by Blowback on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    I have heard since this mess began in 2003.

    "The Surge worked, hey, we won the war!" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    At least according to Faux News this weekend.  They have nothing exciting to say about their candidate so they're desprately trying to undermine one of the key issues our party is on the right side of:  The war in Iraq.  We've been there longer than the second world war and Iraq is still in shambles with an inept government seven years after we invaded.  The longer we stay there, the more likely our dollar and economy will crash.  So now the Repubs have to pretend we've won so that McSame can lie to middle America, tell them we'll start withdrawing troops, and capture their votes.  You read it here at TL first. He and the Repubs will absolutely not end the occupation; they will simply change the framework so that it temporarily appears that we will get out of there.  After the election, if McSame wins, we'll be right back where we were, in a never ending occupation that destroys our economy, our good name in the world and the lives of American troops and Iraqi citizens who are not part of the empowed groups in the new regime.  You can't take a culture emeshed in multigeneration tribal warfare, steeped in religious perversions that brainwash people into murdering the other groups in order to go to heavan, slap a democracy in place and expect there not to be continuous ongoing violence and terrorism.  

    The Iraq occupation is a deliberate strategy by BushCo to inflate oil prices and enrich the Saudis, the Bush family and other investors who are pulling Bush's strings.  Their financial interests that have coalesced with the Neocons' goals to shove this war in Iraq down our throats and now to keep the occupation going and the Iraq oil production low and steady while OPEC manipulates prices and they all get rich.  The whole point of killing Saddam Hussein was to remove the maverick that bucked the system against OPEC's price manipulation strategies.  Remember, oil hit the unheard of high price of $50 a barrel in the mid 1990's, then plummeted to $10 a barrel in 1999.  Since the Iraq invasion, OPEC has steadily increased the price of oil, and those billionaires are invested in taking us for all we're worth from now until the oil runs out in Saudi Arabia.  They get rich while we pay the price at the pump, with the economy collapsing, and with the death of soldiers, same as it ever was.  Now the Iraq government has no incentive to crank up oil production since we are footing the bill for security and infrastructure development (I won't call it rebuilding at this point, we're well beyond that).  If Iraq was raking in huge oil revenues, Americans would be screaming for them to pay for their own reconstruction, long government "vacations" etc., etc.  And they'd have to share the revenues with the oppressed political minorities (Shiites and Kurds).  In fact, they hedge their bets by refusing to state how they will divide the oil profits, even though one of the benchmarks requires them to make a plan for dividing the profits.  Instead, they spend months on our bill deciding to decide later how it will be split.  
    Ending the occupation will be the impetus for Iraq to increase production and lower world oil prices.  Benefits to us:  Reduced gas prices, an end to the senseless abuse of our military, and hopefully a chance to recover our good name in the world and our economy,

    Unless we elect the McCain.  His plan is to build bases and maintain an ongoing presence to protect American billionaires' new investments in Iraq and to ensure oil production is at levels that allow OPEC to continue their price fixing.  The Repubs will probably beef up Blackwater in order to tell the public they're reducing troop levels.  Mercenaries will cost us even more than regular military.   But will people realize this before they elect McSame?  Presidential elections aren't about money, they're about the amygdala.  And if Repubs can pretend they'll get us out of Iraq, middle American will feel safe enough to elect their man, the older, wiser, "more experienced" man.  The man who steadfastly supports the effectiveness of the surge.  It's sad that it may take the deaths of more Iraqis in suicide bombings like what happened today to reveal the Republicans' lie that the surge worked.

    Win the War (none / 0) (#20)
    by Emma on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:30:55 PM EST
    Everybody loves a winner.  IMO, Americans would rather declare the war won and come home rather than declare it failed and come home.

    Is there a politician who can give us a win in Iraq and bring the troops home?  Is there a politician who wants to do it?

    Doesn't matter.  The troops aren't coming home no matter who's President.  A permanent U.S. troop presence is a foregone conclusion.  It's just a question of how many and where and what they'll be doing.


    I don't think we have to stay in Iraq. (none / 0) (#25)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:55:24 PM EST
    We got out of Vietnam in spite of the threat to our nation (trumped up, of course, but believed by many) and the financial interests benefiting from the war there.  I believe we're in a similar situation in Iraq in that there is no way to really win, but with enough public pressure, we'll turn it over to the cheaters in the Iraq government.  Clearly, as soon as Iraq's oil runs out, they're dead in the water.  But until then, we can certainly declare that we've won the war and leave advisors with some protection instead of McCain's plan of temporary/permanent bases positioned along the oil infrastructure lines.  

    We have a candidate who we can elect with a clear mandate to end the occupation, if> we get the following voters on board demanding that mandate:  1) Military personnel and their families, 2) Blue collar and middle class workers who are often tricked by Republicans into voting against their own interests, 3) Disaffected Hillary supporters who might not realize McCain's resume includes the very POW experience that has made him obsessed about staying the course, which we didn't do in Vietnam and which in his distorted mind we should now do in Iraq, and 4) Conservatives who want reduced government spending but who have been played by Republicans into thinking they have to vote for the likes of BushCo to fend off crazy liberals like us.

    Not an easy task, but that's what we have to do to save our economy, our military, and our country's place in the world.


    No we don't have to stay (none / 0) (#42)
    by Emma on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:35:15 PM EST
    But Obama isn't going to end the occupation.  At best he's going to make it smaller.  60,000 troops in Irag -- a number he suggested in the debates, IIRC -- is not ending the occupation.  And, he's expressed support for outfits like Blackwater, so how many of them are going to be there?

    I'm a disaffected Hillary voter.  If Obama convinces me he'll pull the troops out of Iraq, I'll consider coming over.  But he's not going to pull the troops out of Iraq.  He's going to pull SOME of the troops out of Iraq.  IMO, he's going to leave a force too small to do anything, possibly including defend itself (depending on troop placements), and too big to stay out of trouble.

    Ending the war is all pie in the sky.  All anybody is really talking about is scaling back the intensity of the war.  Mandate, shmandate.  Nobody really wants to end it.  And I'm not voting for somebody on the hope he's going to do something he's already indicated he has no intention of doing.

    For my money, the person who can end the war in Iraq is McCain b/c he's the only one with the credibility to call it a win and come home.  Of course, he doesn't WANT to do to that, so it's all moot.


    Yes, you are corrrect (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jim J on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    More violence means we need another surge. You say it tongue-in-cheek, but McCain will be dead serious. He will push Obama on that point, too, possibly with some effect.

    When you get inside their little lizard brains you begin to understand the fiendishly efficient logic that has worked so well for them for so long.

    Don't make the tragic, typically Democratic blunder of assuming everyone will see this through the same lens you do.

    I agree 99%. (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:07:23 AM EST
    We liberals are the underdogs in this country. That's why we have to FIGHT for what's right (we ain't always perfect ourselves though). Remember, liberals are the ones generally that are lynched/assassinated historically. I'm shocked that Obama hasn't backed down (yet...) on the surge. Not sure if that's smart politically.

    But, I thought the surge worked already? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lil on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:57:13 AM EST

    Of course the (none / 0) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:00:36 AM EST
    answer is to speed up the pull out.  This will let the iraqis blow each other up faster.

    Not if they are already in America (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:09:39 AM EST
    since we are relaxing our standards to let Iraqis in...tenfold I believe.  America would have done well to just leave Iraq alone.

    yup, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    Cats out of the bag though.

    How Touching (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:21:41 AM EST
    The right wingers are bonding over anti-immigration and death of Muslims.

    Like Clockwork (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    We can always count on you to provide us with BushCo policy, hopes and dreams.

    Let's (none / 0) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    hear your answer, well thought out of course.

    And after squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    let's hear your Grand Idea.

    We are stuck there for a while (none / 0) (#43)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:49:33 PM EST
    keep up the pressure on the Iraqi gov't and the Sunni and Shias.  

    Sorry this bad idea was the right wing's (4.66 / 3) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:31:23 AM EST
    Gangrene has set in and there is no good answer other than to amputate the wing. Have a slug of whiskey to dull the pain.

    We Agree That Leaving Iraq Is Essential (4.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    The difference we have is that I believe that the biggest cause of violence in Iraq is the US occupation, and do not believe that Iraq will self destruct after we leave. Also I would do everything possible to help the sunni/shi resolve their differences, while you would obviously do everything to foment a civil war, including black ops missions meant to increase hatred and civil war.

    Wylie wants Iraq as an American colony, he just believes that it would be much easier to acquire the oil rich country after the population decimates itself.


    You (none / 0) (#40)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    would not know me if your spilled your latte on me.  

    True (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    In person I would never be able to recognize you, but unless you have been lying all these years, your comments indicate your positions. In fact you just basically quoted BushCo, once again.

    Of course the answer is to speed up the pull out.  This will let the iraqis blow each other up faster.

    It might have been funny had it not been an oft repeated quote by Henry Kissinger who said regarding the Iraq-Iran war, "we want them all to kill each other off".

    The civil war has obviously been flamed by the US. It appears that you are on board with the most vicious and cynical neocon policy, a position that also seems consistent with your other comments here at TL.

    But you are right, I would not know you if I bumped into you on the street. Sorry not even sure what latte is, never had it. I drink my coffee black and strong.


    While contuning violence like this (none / 0) (#17)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    is very unfortunate, the fact remains that overall violence is way down, and overall security is way up.

    How do you explain the following facts and statements:

    The number of US deaths in Iraq is down to 4 in July, from 66 a year ago (at least as of a few days ago).

    "Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased." (Burns and Reid in recent AP article)

    "Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future. "Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on." (AP article)

    "Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring -- now a quiet though not fully secure district." (AP article)

    We're paying the bad guys to not kill us. (none / 0) (#18)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:21:32 PM EST
    The contracts started in Feb 2007 and they expire in November, coincidently right after the elections.  Terrorists receive money weekly as long as they do not commit violence.  As new potential terrorists are identified, they are added to the payoff program that you and I are funding.  

    There will be an escalation of violence in November, and if the Republicans win the presidency, they'll have a ready made excuse to force another surge down our throats.


    BS (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    Overall violence is down against US troops because they are not exposing themselves to violence and remaining in protected areas, green zone etc. If the Iraqi's had air power the violence against US troops would be a daily occurrence.

    It Comes As No Surprise (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:30:52 PM EST
    That the NYT would leave out the reason for this recent violence:

    Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that a controversy is raging in the Iraqi parliament about the veto exercised by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani against a bill passed last week enabling elections in the fall. MP and former court judge Wael Abd al-Latif of the State Party charged that the veto was "unconstitutional." He said that when a bill is vetoed, it has to go back to parliament for another vote, and needs a 3/5s majority to overturn the veto. Abd al-Latif also pointed to the constitution's requirement that the presidential council act through consensus. In this case, Talabani and Adel Abdul Mahdi vetoed the bill while their colleague, the other vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, was out of town! He should have been consulted about appointing a proxy to vote for him but was not.

    A member of the Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front, Khalaf al-Ulyan, called for Talabani to be removed from the presidency, on the grounds that his veto derived from ethnic solidarity rather than from a concern to act on behalf of the entire Iraqi nation.

    Juan Cole

    Former General Fallon, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    the former head of U.S. Central Command in the Mideast, said the following in an NY Times Op-Ed piece on July 20. Note his first sentence on the huge decline in violence.

    "The number of incidents of violence nationwide in Iraq is less than a tenth of what we were experiencing in the spring of 2007. The casualty rate among American troops is the lowest in more than four years and continues to improve. Ethnic and sectarian violence among the Iraqi population has declined to levels not seen since the early days of the war.

    Iraq's security forces, with only modest coalition support, have demonstrated unprecedented initiative by taking control and assuming security of previously insurgent-dominated areas like Amara, Basra, Diwaniya and Sadr City. These actions signal a more confident and capable Iraqi leadership and military.

    The government of Prime Minister Maliki has assumed an increasingly large share of the cost of Iraqi security, paying $3 for each American dollar contributed, and is on track to assume near total responsibility next year as revenues from oil exports continue to rise. Economic activity in Iraq is accelerating. Major oil companies are signing development contracts to improve the infrastructure."

    Again, reducing violence does not mean (none / 0) (#28)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    crazy murderers have decided to stop blowing people up.  Terrorism will continue, the only question to me is, will the American public be lulled into thinking BushCo is making reasonable decisions with our taxes (current and future) with the $5000 a minute price tag.  

    Will Americans be tricked into voting for McSame because the Repubs manage to trick them into thinking the Surge (and temporarily paying off the bad guys) means that we've somehow won?  Because we haven't.  Someone who's willing to blow themselves up today will still be willing to do so next November, after the election.  As soon as the Repubs stop paying off terrorists, there will be a resurgence of violence.  And that renewed violence will be McSame's ticket to keep the occupation going.


    Sunni and Shia.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    have been killing each other for hundreds of years, and will continue to kill each other whether we stick around to "protect interests" or not.

    Bring 'em home and let 'em sort it out.  When the US was in Civil War over slavery aka states rights, would the presence of a British or French occupying force have helped?  I think not.

    Sunni and Shia also (none / 0) (#29)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    lived together in certain neighborhoods and inter-married in Iraq, according to my understanding. I suppose it's hard to tell what Sunni and Shia might have been doing in Iraq had Hussein not be in charge, but my impression is the groups might have been less hostile to each other than in other locations.

    I've also seen that a number of experts don't believe there will be a civil war or huge hostilities between Sunni and Shia if/when the US departs. I realize there are others who disagree with this view.

    There are far fewer people (none / 0) (#31)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    willing to blow themselves up in Iraq. This is one reason that there have been more female bombers this year. The insurgents have had to recruit women. It is also true that women bombers tend to attract less attention.

    Our military can think out of the box (none / 0) (#36)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    when it comes to buying off the bad guys, but haven't quite made it far enough to buy off female bad guys.  

    Another factor is that some bombers think they're just delivering something, they don't always have the material strapped to their chests.  Sometimes it's a package or attached to their vehicle.  Which means some attacks are done without the bomb carriers' knowledge.


    More of our liberation on display (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    McBush, keep saying these words: (none / 0) (#35)
    by Blowback on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:19:09 PM EST
    "The Surge is working." It is propaganda but it works. Just ask W.


     "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in," he said, "to kind of catapult the propaganda."

    George W Bush, 2005. Greece, NY

    As stable as a House of Cards (none / 0) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    in a sandstorm.  That is what we have, even with the combat troop escalation (i.e. surge), Mahdi army and tribal payoffs.  The so called surge was intended to provide "breathing space"  for Iraq (and this country) to enable political resolution.  Each component of the military effort is tenuous and the political situation goes forward one step and back, two.  Military occupations provide a modicum of temporary relief if lucky, but essentially control events through oppression. The cost in lives, military and civilian, continues. The cost in treasury is such that we burn through off-budget borrowing in about six months, the equivalent of the combined endowments of the richest universities: Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Brown.  Re-deployment of "combat troops" to Afghanistan (not bringing these troops home) as well as keeping residual troops and contract support (e.g. Blackwater) is unlikely to get us out of this mess either.

    Two steps forward and (none / 0) (#38)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:04:22 PM EST
    one step back is a more accurate description of activiites in '08, in my view.

    Yes, most everyone says the situation is still fragile and subject to deterioration. However, my view is that an objective look would acknowledge significant progress and multiple positive deveopments.

    Significant progress? (none / 0) (#39)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    To what end?  Temporarily staving off violence so Republicans can win the presidency so we can then reestablish and continue the occupation that artificially keeps Iraq oil production low and steady so OPEC can continue to illegally manipulate oil prices until the Saudi's run out of oil.  PeakOil scientists estimate that will happen around 2025, but religious apocalypse believers are hoping for an end to the world on Dec 21, 2012, so one more term of McSame should meet their needs just fine.

    Green26, you keep posting separate comments that present the surge as a successful strategy, a winning strategy, for BushCo.  What's you investment?  Clearly not a "green" perspective.


    Oil production is (none / 0) (#41)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    up and increasing in Iraq. Agreement was reached with the Iraqis a couple months ago, to allow certain oil companies to sign agreements with Iraq on an interim basis. Some of these agreements are expected to be signed as early as August.

    MLM, I've posted some of these other materials to try to balance the information and discussion taking place on this site, and perhaps stimulate the discussion. I follow Iraq fairly closely because I have a son who is an Army Ranger now back in Iraq for a second deployment. I also happen to have a buddy who is working hard to get a oil contract signed with Iraq.

    I also believe the surge and related counterinsurgency strategy has in fact been successful. Many, if not most, commentators seem to be saying that too.

    Your buddy trying to get an oil contract in Iraq (none / 0) (#44)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:20:24 PM EST
    should not be trying to make money off our military and taxpayer dollars.  If the Chinese got the oil contracts, then they would have to defend the oil infrastructure for the next fifty years instead of us.  If people like "your buddy" get the contracts, American taxpayers will be paying for an extended occupation ostensibly to keep the fledgling government floating, but in reality it will be to protect the financial interests of billionaires who are "invested" in Iraq's oil.  

    This year is probably our only chance to demand that we get out of Iraq.  We can do that with a clear mandate through the Democratic party.  If we don't do it now, our government has the power and wherewithal to make us pay for mercenaries instead of military, while our military is redirected to other nearby countries like Afghanistan.  This will happen if either McCain wins, or if Obama wins without the anti-war mandate.

    Is there some reason why you keep posting new comments instead of replying to comments already posted?  Is your goal to just keep posting that the surge really, really did work?  The pundits are saying so, after all, so maybe we should quit the anti-war rhetoric and just cough up the bucks (and our children's and grandchildren's future income while we're at it).  

    Tell you what, if you really do have a kid in Iraq and you're not just a paid blog poster, how about you and your oil buddy find a way to pay the $5000 a minute price for this war and let the rest of us spend our tax money on education, U.S. infrastructure repair, green energy and the rest of those things that are falling by the wayside right now.


    Iraq opened up bidding by oil (none / 0) (#45)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:48:25 PM EST
    companies in late June. Here are some quotes from a Reuters article on June 30:

    "BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq opened its giant oilfields to foreign firms on Monday, putting British and U.S. companies in pole position five years after U.S.-led troops invaded the country to oust Saddam Hussein.

    The move to invite bids for the development of Iraq's largest producing fields should mark the return of the oil majors whose cash and expertise Iraq needs to restore its oil infrastructure that has been hard hit by sanctions and war.

    The Oil Ministry said they were open for long-term development contracts. Iraq has prequalified 41 foreign firms.

    Iraq said last week it also hoped to sign six short-term oil technical support contracts during the next month.

    Five of the short-term deals that have been under discussion are with Royal Dutch Shell; Shell in partnership with BHP Billiton; BP; Exxon Mobil and Chevron in partnership with Total."

    MLM, I don't understand why you believe oil companies shouldn't try to get contracts with Iraq.

    Yes MLM, I do have a son in Iraq, as my prior posts indicate. He is now somewhere on the east side of Baghdad, in a recon post, presumbly near Sadr city. In his prior deployment, he was south of Baghdad in/near an area known as the Triangle of Death and in the Anbar province (during the start of the Sunni awakening and the surge). He's a shooter and door-to-door guy. He was wounded last summer, including a 4-inch shrapnel hole in his back. He believes in the mission. I don't get paid to blog (and have to rely on my law firm for the pay).