Ivins: Despair not an option in Iraq war

[Rhiannon12866]

POSTED: 2:19 p.m. EDT, October 17, 2006

AUSTIN, Texas (CREATORS) -- One reason despair is not an option is because things can always get worse, and then what'll we do? I was actually trying to figure that out when I came across a remarkable article written for the The Nation magazine (known for its liberalism for 141 years) by Richard J. Whalen -- a conservative in good standing, a former Nixon staffer. Whalen has undertaken the singularly valuable task of talking to dissenting generals about the war in Iraq.

I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States." And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq.

"The only question is whether a war serves the national interest," one retired three-star told Whalen. "Iraq does not."

Whalen writes: "The dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq this nation's last strategically failed war -- that is, one doggedly waged by civilian officials largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human and other costs, damaging or entirely destroying the national interest it was supposed to serve."

During Vietnam, senior soldiers kept quiet. But after it ended, officers, including Colin Powell, "vowed it would never happen again." But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the other civilians in charge overruled the military minds and ignored the possible consequences.

Some of Whalen's and the generals' clearest points come from breaking the silent ban against comparing Iraq to the Vietnam War. Don't know if you noticed this, but from the beginning anyone who spoke right up and said, "This is just like Vietnam," had the experience of right-wingers landing on them, screeching: "This is not like Vietnam. This Is Not Like Vietnam. THIS IS NOT LIKE VIETNAM." Of course it is. We just haven't wasted 57,000 American lives yet.

http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/POLITICS/10/17/ivins.iraq/index.html

[Demeter]

1. A Grimmer, Joke-Free Molly

Reflecting, a grim, humorless situation.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Success is not an option in Iraq

the least bad option in which we stay in Iraq--the so-called "Stability First" option, which I'm sad to say will receive considerable bipartisan support--means that we will support a declared dictatorship of the Shia in Baghdad as they roll-out a wave of repressive violence against Sunni areas, which will almost certainly rise to genocidal proportions. The term "genocide" will be heard from various observers and perhaps some "name" humanitarian organizations.

We won't be doing the shooting ourselves, but we will be backing the New Saddam with guns and money, in exchange for which we keep our bases and access to the oil.

Even if "Stability First" works, and I don't think it will, I wouldn't call that a successful foreign policy or making the best of a bad situation. I'd call it complicity with genocide.

[Briar]

3. For those pooh poohing the report on Iraqi casualties

Molly has this to say:

Meanwhile, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health now estimates about 655,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war. All the work in the study fell to a knee-jerk response from conservatives, "Oh, that can't be right." Yet the methodology employed is the same as is used by the federal government to decide how to spend millions of dollars every year. It is, as they say, the industry standard.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. Well, the good news is at least CNN has seen the light and

decided to pick up Molly's column. I certainly don't ever recall seeing her column at their site before. Hopefully, this will give her a larger audience.

[Rhiannon12866]

5. Thanks and I agree. I was also surprised, but pleased, to find her column

there. Too bad that my local paper dropped it...:-(