Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Dumping Iraq

The Bush Administration is reportedly planning to dump Iraq on the international community as a way of getting the issue off the US political agenda before the 2008 presidenial elections. What this means in practical terms is finding some suckers to provide a peacekeeping force, allowing US troops to be withdrawn, while dumping responsibility for reconstruction (you know, the thing the US promised but didn't do, while stealing all the funds for Halliburton) on the UN.

After the way the US treated the international community and the United Nations in the lead-up to the invasion, the gall is simply astounding. Having told the rest of the world that he does not care what they think, George Bush now expects them to bail him out of his stinking quagmire and send their children to die so that American may live (oh, and help his party, the gang that enabled all this, to win an election)? Fuck that!

Iraq is America's mess, and America can clean it up. And if they're unwilling to do it, then they can hardly expect anybody else to do it for them.


Let's hope the international community and/or the UN isn't silly enough to take up Bush's offer.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 05:30:00 PM

I/S-I thought you were against the US keeping troops in Iraq. I do agree that in any case the US should pay for the reconstruction and if theres a peace keeping force should pay much of its costs as well. But opposing a peace keeping force for spitefull reasons is not going to help the iraqi people, or many other people except terrorists.A peace keeping force might help stabilise iraq faster, and end the suffering of the Iraqi people under the chaos that is present currently. I however doubt if there will be a peacekeeping force, and if there is one it could get heavy casulties, at least in the short run.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 05:37:00 PM

Nicholas: I am. And I'm against continuing the occupation with US proxies as well.

If the US thinks the occupation is no longer worth it, they should simply go home. But expecting everyone else to stump up and send their kids to die for Halliburton is a bit rich.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/23/2007 05:58:00 PM

Colour me sceptical, but I've got reservations about this story. The only source is a "former official" who claims to be "familiar with administration thinking". Forgive me for thinking this is a brittle peg to hang a story on.

Isn't it more likely that UN involvement is touted to divert from the real message: that the "surge" is going to be extended another six months after September? Why seek a six-month extension while simultanously signalling you're looking to get the UN to take over?

If you need more evidence that this doesn't pass the smell test, just think how Bush's belligerent base would react if Bush really did run to the UN -- the UN! -- with his tail between his legs.

They may have serious reasoning skill impairment, but they can all spell 'appeasement'.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 06:03:00 PM

Let's hope the international community, I mean "US proxies", aren't as quite as spiteful.

Move On Idiot. The war happened; the issue now is the future of Iraq. Are you really more concerned with a vendetta against Bush than with what's in the best interest of Iraq?

I would have thought that co-coordinating an international effort to support democracy in Iraq with US troops leaving would be just what those opposed to the war would want.

Not all international issues need to be about giving the finger to Bush.

But this post isn't really about debating is it Idiot? It's about baiting.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 06:53:00 PM

The US should definitely be paying very large amounts of money into the foreseeable future (along with the UK and Aus), including the costs of any peacekeepers that end up in Iraq, real reconstruction, compensation to Iraqis that have lost family or property as a result of their invasion, and the proper placement of refugees.

Other conditions for help could include agreement to hold a truth commission or to turn over specified people to face trial, including leaders such as Dick Cheney.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 07:53:00 PM

I'm confused.

Do we want the US to pull out, or do we want them to stay?

Posted by Anonymous : 5/23/2007 08:15:00 PM

This is all irrelevant.

It ain't happening. There's no way that the international community is going to wade into the quagmire in place of the USA.

Remember the scale of what's needed to make Iraq stable: 300,000 troops at a bare minimum plus support, supplies, etc, all there for the long haul. Iraq isn't some tiny postage-stamp state like Bosnia (or, er, New Zealand). Iraq has a population of close to 30 million, over half of the adult males have military training, it has well-armed fanatical neighbours keen to push arms across its porous borders, and its rates of personal gun-ownership exceed even the USA.

And if think this might succeed by getting local support where the USA has not, note that the guy in this story who is speaking against this idea this is the Iraqi foreign minister.

Nope. "The international community" just isn't that dumb.

Posted by Mr Wiggles : 5/24/2007 10:25:00 AM

Lets' see here, if the UN goes into Iraq will they continue on everwhere else in the World without comment from the left.

Like forced rape, and being involved in the arms trade in the Congo.

Helping with genocide in Rwanda, Ksovo, and Bosina.

The Oil for Food scandel in Iraq.

Basically where the UN has gone or done in the last twenty years the outcomes for the people they are there to protect has been a disaster.

With a track record like the UN you got to wonder why Kofi isn't being tried as a war criminal.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/24/2007 11:51:00 AM

You communists need to grow up. This Halliburton stuff is a load of rot, and even if it is all about Halliburton, good on them for getting rid of Sadam.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/26/2007 07:58:00 PM

The USA went in there and caused this mess why should they expect the rest of the world to clean it up after they didnt listen to us when we told them not to go in to Iraq in the first place...and a peace keeping force will not work just as the USA army isnt working, you cant occupy a country when the majority dont want you there. There is no right or wrong thing to do, because if the USA leaves there will be a genocide but if they stay the violence will only get worse. Its a lose lose situation and in the end the world will end up paying for America's counter-productive "war on terror".

Posted by Anonymous : 6/11/2007 02:30:00 PM