Iraq and bush's big lie: make sure you understand the propaganda

[welshTerrier2]

some call it the "flypaper" strategy ... it's all bullshit and propaganda ... the idea of the "flypaper strategy" is that continued US occupation of Iraq is part of the war on terror because it's attracting al Qaeda and other bad guys to Iraq where US troops can confront them directly and wipe them out ... the big lie is that we have to remain in Iraq to save Iraqis from outside terrorist invaders and from Sunni insurgents loyal to Saddam ...

the "flypaper strategy" is also being used to try to build support for attacks on other countries including Syria and Iran ... and even some Democrats have proposed solutions to Iraq that heavily rely on negotitations with other countries in the region to help quell the violence ... the belief is that negotiations could get these governments to stop "allowing" jihadists to go to Iraq to join the insurgency ...

the problem with all this thinking though is that it fails to understand exactly who the "insurgents" in Iraq really are ... the idea that most of the violence is being caused by terrorists pouring over the borders from Iran and perhaps Syria is not based on the real picture ... the articles below provide data that show the insurgency is comprised of only 4 to 10 percent of foreign fighters ...

most of those fighting against US occupation forces are Iraqi citizens (mostly Sunnis) ... it is clear from their non-participation in last January's election and in their armed struggle against the US-imposed government in Iraq that Sunnis do not believe a Shia-controlled government will protect their rights ... the only thing training more Iraqi troops will do is lead to genocide against the Sunnis ... the whole policy makes no sense ...

the great lie in Iraq is that we are training Iraqis to defend their homeland from evil invaders ... the truth is we are training one culture inside Iraq to be powerful enough to repress another culture ... the whole justification for continued occupation is based on a myth ...

source: http://csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq "feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says "Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent)." CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence sources in the Gulf region. (NOTE: notice Iran is not even listed!!) <skip>

The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not "Saddam Hussein loyalists" but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are "wary of a Shiite-led government."

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1576666,00.html

The report came as President Bush said a pullout of US forces would embolden America's enemies, allowing the Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden "to dominate the Middle East and launch more attacks on America and other free nations".

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I say the flypaper strategy is just great

UNLESS YOU HAPPEN TO LIVE ON THE FLYPAPER. Geez. Violence is violence whether here or there. It seems immoral to inflict OUR violence on another country.

[welshTerrier2]

2. "violence on another country"

that's exactly what's so wrong about this ... there is a significant Shia majority in Iraq ... when the bush, or even some Democrats, talk about "democracy" and squashing the insurgency, the ultimate result will be oppression of Sunnis and violence against Sunnis ...

there is no way, given Iraq's cultural demographics, to make sense of a "democratic system" that enables the majority to impose its will on the minority ... the Sunnis understand the situation they're in and so they continue to fight ... all the US occupation is doing is fighting against Sunnis who are fighting to avoid a "democratically imposed repression" ...

democracy is a great solution when the rights of the minority are protected ...it's obvious from what we're seeing in Iraq that continued US occupation is doing anything but that ... and bringing in other countries, without giving them some form of authority over Iraq's internal affairs (which clearly makes no sense), will do nothing to ensure the rights of Iraq's minorities ... the result? never-ending violence ... the US occupation cannot get there from here ... we have to withdraw our military and let Iraq's internal process evolve ... diplomacy can only play a role when the US occupation is terminated ...

[Zhade]

25. Great point - and the "strategy" doesn't even make sense.

If the argument is that our soldiers are "fighting them over there so they don't have to fight them over here", doesn't that basically mean that "them" - al Qaeda - wouldn't be in Iraq if we weren't there?

So if we weren't there, per this "flypaper theory" (which is the notion that we're there to attract the 'flies' of al Qaeda), we wouldn't need to be there to protect Iraqis from the terrorists that wouldn't be there since we wouldn't be there!

I trust that makes sense - at least, more sense than this ridiculous "flypaper" idea.

(WT2: Great point about the USG training one faction to put down another. I hadn't thought of it the way you put it, but it feels right. Consider this kicked and nominated.)

[cantstandbush]

28. I'd say it was double-sided fly paper. We are there so they can kill us

and we are there so we can kill them. Either way, it's a stupid statement, a stupid idea, and another stupid lie.

[Wordie]

3. Yes, it has about as much credibility as the other statements, ie: Saddam

had WMDs; Saddam's ties to bin Laden, etc.

The average American knows (or cares?) so little about the ME, that it is very easy for this kind of propaganda to be believed.

My question is, is Bush a knowing perpetrator of the propaganda, or a gullible naif who also knows nothing about the ME, and who is just spouting someone else's nonsense.

[welshTerrier2]

4. bush knows; they all know ...

i expect bush to lie about anything they can use to sustain support for continued occupation ... a second problem, though, is with the Democratic Party ... some, while not supporting bush's approach which will just yield more of the same, believe that involving Iraq's neighbors could heal Iraq's internal strife ...

i fear they are basing this belief on an erroneous premise ... they believe that if Iraq's neighbors were willing to clamp down on "terrorist infiltrators", the violence would end ... the problem, though, is that the "insurgency" is predominantly an internal Iraqi matter ... the idea that Iran or Syria could crack down on jihadists that travel to Iraq from or through neighboring countries is just plain wrong ... most neighboring states lack the resources to achieve this and foreign fighters represent less than 10% of the insurgents ...

the "insurgency" in Iraq is an internal political struggle by a minority population against allowing the Shia majority to dictate terms to them ... democracy and a Constitution that codifies Sharia Law is no democracy at all ... neither involving neighboring states nor imposing a US-mandated "democracy" will do anything to change that and consequently the Sunni rebellion and the associated violence will never end ...

until Democrats come to understand that the rebellion in Iraq is justified because it's a fight for survival and a fight for freedom from religious oppression, they will continue to propose unworkable solutions to the crisis ... it's not that the US is backing the wrong side; it's that we have no business imposing a solution on this internal political struggle ... the US policy of battling "the insurgents" doesn't make any sense ...

[bluedawg12]

5. we are in a civil war- I think you are saying that, too

if so, I agree.

If this is correct, then the case we need to make to the American people is just that.

Namely, as long as we remain in Iraq we are prolonging a civil war by siding with the Shiite majority against the Sunni's who will never stop fighting.

Nixon declared victory and left Viet Nam.

We should draw down our troop strength, say were are finishing training iraqi's for self governance and then quietly leave them to their newly formed democracy.

But, there will be those in the U.S., even those against shrub, who will fear that our leaving Iraq wholesale will leave a
geo-strategically important Iraq at risk for anti-western extremist take over.

Plus, Israel would be threatened if we left.

What would do you say to that argument?

[welshTerrier2]

7. "anti-western extremist take over"

i think that's exactly the myth here ... who exactly are these anti-western extremists? it's clear that foreign fighters have not "infiltrated" Iraq and are not strong enough to take over the country with or without US occupation ... nor is it at all clear that's an objective they seek ... it seems their primary motivation is the expulsion of the occupying US forces from Arab lands ...

now, if by "anti-western extremists" we mean Shia or Sunni elements, we would need to declare a permanent occupation ...

if one were truly concerned about anti-US sentiments, one would not continue to sow the seeds of hatred for the US ... we are seen as imperialists hostile to the Muslim culture ... they've seen what we did to Mossadeq in Iran ... they understand far better than Americans the role the US played propping up the tyrannical Shah and propping up Saddam for so many years ... and they understand the US mission is predominantly about oil and establishing US military and political control in the region ... they've lived with US foreign policy abuses for more than half a century ... if we want to be safer, we need a major change in US foreign policy ...

and the "Israel would be threatened" argument i see as yet another canard ... can anyone really argue that occupying Iraq and fomenting more anti-western sentiment helps Israel? if the US were truly a broker for peace in the region, both the US and Israel would be far safer ... Iraq really has no effective military remaining ... the government forces need to call in the US to back them up everytime there is a small outbreak of violence ... surely a post occupation Iraq will not have the military clout to pose a danger to Israel ... and surely any danger that might exist in Iraq would be far less than the danger posed to Israel from Iran ... occupation seems to me to put the entire issue of global peace at risk ... if we want a peaceful, safer world, we should stop trying to use our military to achieve inappropriate objectives ...

[bluedawg12]

20. Didn't the Iraq war spawn a thousand Osama's?

There are more anti-western elements than just the Shiite's and Sunni's.

Pakistan bred a few.
The taliban is waiting to re-emerge.
Wahabi's.

Israel is not being helped or made safer by this FUBAR war, but, some still talk as if leaving would weaken Israel.

Frankly, the help shrub has given to Israeli position....well help like that you don't need. He made more enemies for them.

Also, what would Israel think about a sudden Iraqus interruptus?

[Wordie]

6. Excellent points that show from the outset, the war in Iraq was no-win

As I cannot believe that Bush's goal was to establish a sharia government in Iraq, I can only believe he entered into it because he was mislead by advisors, who either were naive themselves, or who had other goals that were contrary to our true interests.

This is a man who doesn't like to read, who relies on others for information. What other conclusion can there be than he just didn't understand what he was doing?

And as for involving other countries...I agree wholeheartedly with you. The ME is contentious enough, why involve other ME countries in even more strife?

I believe that Bush's primary goal in life is to be seen as the President who completed the Reagan revolution. He has steadfastly worked on that goal, ignoring the realities of the ME, not to mention the U.S. I think he expected his efforts in the war in Iraq to be akin to Reagan's "tear down this wall" statement, with similar results. He is not stupid, but hideously naive.

[bluedawg12]

8. He was so ill prepared to be President

so uneducated about foreign policy, economy, domestic matters- that having been a creation of KKKarl he thought he could rely on his advisors or as CEO's like to pull: "consultants" to do his thinking that he was mislead by Frum and PNAC crowd and he thought this would be a cake walk.

He never bothered about domestic matters-beyond corporate welfare aka tax cuts.

he read Sharansky, belatedly, got Milton Friedmans cliff notes,
got grover Nordquists cliff notes-- probably during those 2 weeks Condi schooled him and then read My Pet goat when the crap hit the fan.

[Wordie]

9. Yep...and now that events (such as Katrina, Iraq setbacks) have shown his

policies to be totally bankrupt, he just doesn't really have an out. He seems confused, fumbling.

It's a pity, if Katrina had to happen, that it didn't happen BEFORE the 2004 election.

[bluedawg12]

12. There was no neoconnie/conservative think tank for Katrina

they are unable to govern and don't like government.

This was the totality of it and it became apparent to all of the U.S.

Now,he is playing CEO at faux board meetings at USAF bases.

[Wordie]

13. LOL...REALITY, the element the neo-cons forgot! eom

[bluedawg12]

17. They don't care about domestic issues, they eye world issues

and they got caught in a domestic crisis that revealed this.

[Clarkie1]

10. I certainly agree the "flypaper" theory is a big lie.

That is nothing new.

I agree the Sunnis are wary of a Shia-led government, just as the Shia were oppressed for years under a Sunni-led goverment.

I believe a civil war in Iraq precipitated by a an all-out, immmediate U.S. withdrawl would in fact kill more innocents than our occupation, provide an even great training ground for terrorists, and most likely lead to an extemist, radical, anti-Western government.

The Iraqis who have supported us would probably all be jailed, tortured, or most likely killed.

What is your plan?

[Wordie]

11. There does not seem to be a good answer (the definition of no-win). eom

[welshTerrier2]

14. my plan is immediate withdrawal followed by ...

an intensive, UN backed, regionially supported peace process ...

i do NOT agree at all that "The Iraqis who have supported us would probably all be jailed, tortured, or most likely killed." the Iraqis who are currently supportive of the US military presence are primarily those in the majority, i.e. the Shia ... we're helping them push a process that will allow them to dominate "democratic Iraq" ... they comprise the very significant majority of the troops the US is training ... what we're doing in Iraq right now is empowering the forces of fundamentalist repression ...

sitting at the core of any continued US occupation is the hideous truth that we are not in Iraq to help anybody ... in fact, we're not in Iraq even to help the US ... we are there because of the "military-industrial complex" ... we are there to make billions for big oil ... it's been said so many times it may sound trite but bush is in Iraq for regional control and access to oil ... allowing him to remain there achieves nothing but the implementation of his greedy agenda ...

the right plan is for the US to stand up for peace and to demonstrate respect for sovereign nations ... we cannot do either of these things while we continue to occupy Iraq with our military and battle against those fighting for their own liberation from a "democratically imposed fundamentalist tyranny of the majority."

and finally, i disagree with your statement that immediate withdrawal would "provide an even great training ground for terrorists" ... this seems to miss key points from the articles cited in the BP ... it appears that most "foreign fighters", those bush likes to call terrorists, have come to Iraq primarily to fight against the US ... there is very little evidence that Iraq would become a breeding ground for terrorism if the US withdraws ... the reality is that so called "terrorists" are getting a great education in Iraq because the US continues to occupy Iraq ... the argument being made about training terrorists ignores the current reality ... the US is their motivation for being there ... and let's not forget that these foreign "terrorists" represent a miniscule percentage of the "insurgents" ...

again, my plan is immediate, or very near term, withdrawal ... the US can then offer huge amount of reparation support for those willing to seek a peaceful resolution ... and at that point, perhaps a regionally supported process might help implement the rebuilding of Iraq ... at this point, while we remain occupiers, no one in the Middle East believes the US is fighting for the best interests of the Iraqi people ... pulling out our military is a critically necessary first step toward healing the damage we've done ...

[Wordie]

15. You know, I have not favored a sudden pullout of our forces, fearing that

to do so would only cause MORE chaos there. I still tend to think there would be more bloodshed and an escalation of the war, as the Shiite forces attempt utter domination. I also worry about the world percieving us (once again) as people who cut and run, abandoning our repsonsibilities. And the mess in Iraq now IS our responsibility - though much of what Powell said at the UN was lies, the "you break it, you own it" thing was true, at least in a moral sense.)

The problem is that the alternative is just as bad.

One phrase of yours is pretty persuasive, though:
...at this point, while we remain occupiers, no one in the Middle East believes the US is fighting for the best interests of the Iraqi people.

I can't say I'm convinced, but I'm listening.

[welshTerrier2]

16. that's great ...

i really appreciate your willingness to listen ...

it's important to understand that, if we had a president who was genuinely committed to the sales pitch bush has made, i.e. bringing stability and perhaps democracy, i might be far more open to investing a little more time in Iraq ... but we don't and i'm not ...

everyone understands that the US is an imperialist power ... how can we possibly convince anyone, especially with bush in office and especially while our military remains, that we are honest brokers for peace? the truth is, of course, that we are NOT honest brokers for peace ... we have destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, poisoned their water supplies, flattened their utilities and caused widespread disease and hunger ... virtually no hope remains for women in Iraq ... freedoms they once enjoyed, even under Saddam, are gone and will not return ...

i guess the most potent argument i can make for immediate withdrawal, even beyond the longer-term political analysis, is based on a measure of the results we've achieved so far ... the goals that many well-meaning Americans have for Iraq are often noble ... we all hopefully want to avoid civil war ... even if democracy can't be achieved, most of us hope for stability ... but we've been there for almost two and a half years ... is the US occupation a positive force to achieve these noble goals or is it a negative force creating an artificial, unmaintainable impediment to the necessary evolution of whatever might follow in Iraq? i'm afraid i believe it is the latter ...

in the end, as long as big oil maintains its stranglehold on US foreign policy, nothing good will come from our Iraq policy no matter what we do ... the only good news is that i believe the political momentum for withdrawal is building into a huge tidal wave ... i think the political pressure by year-end will force the hand of our own government to make a major change in course ... i'm hoping, but not sure, that change will lead to a total withdrawal ...

[Wordie]

23. I agree with most of your analysis, its just how the conclusion part would

actually be carried out that I am uncertain of. I would have to say that I myself don't know enough about what is going on to predict the results with such a plan. And would the UN even be willing to participate?

[bluedawg12]

18. UN backed how? Peace keepers?

"an intensive, UN backed, regionially supported peace process ..."

What peace "process" talks? With whom?

The Syrians and Iranians have no reason to see this mess cleaned up.
They benefit with every cut, drop of blood and failure we endure.

Which nation in the middle east wants to see this succeed with US leadership in the vanguard?

I am afraid we have a tiger by the tail- can't ride it, can't let go.

[welshTerrier2]

19. "with US leadership in the vanguard?"

all i can say is i agree ... the "peace process" needs to be a global/regional effort ... and it cannot occur while the US remains in occupation ... we have to withdraw before this process can begin ...

the US role would be primarily as a funding source for infrastructure rebuilding ... rebuilding jobs would go to Iraqis first and then to others as requested by the Iraqi government or the UN ... i would not put in a UN peace keeping force because i believe any military occupation will lead to more violence; not less violence ... the Iraqis are going to have to work out their own internal political struggles ... i would hope that with the right economic incentives channeled through the UN, internal parties in Iraq might be cajoled into cooperating with each other ... their sure as hell are no guarantees ... it also will be of critical importance to find a way to "share" the oil revenues ...

[Clarkie1]

21. Repression is repression.

Whether it's sunnis repressing shias, or shias repressing sunnis.

The only near certainty I see regarding what would happen with your plan for immediate or near immediate withdrawl of all forces is there would be a bloody civil war, and when when it is over those in power would be those who were the most ruthless and repressive of their enemies.

[welshTerrier2]

22. and your plan?

what are the details of your plan and how will repression and a bloody civil war be avoided?

[Clarkie1]

27. There is not guarantee either of those can be avoided.

Clark has the best approach to the current situation, but unfortunately he is not president.

It is better to put pressure on the administration to use diplomacy rather than to withdraw immediately and leave the region in chaos. They are unlike to follow our advice, but we can at least advise the best course of action. The best course of action is not immediate withdrawl....if you you thinking pressuring them to withdraw immediately will get them to do that, then you must also believe there is a chance pressuring them to use more diplomacy and talk to Iran and Syria will get them to do that. It needs to be a regional solution.

To reiterate, the administration is unlikely to follow any of the plans any of us have for Iraq...immmediate withdrawl, use of diplommacy, whatever, but that doesn't mean we should not advise the best course of action.

[welshTerrier2]

29. what would be the objective of "diplomacy" ??

the whole point of the BP was to show that very little of the violence going on in Iraq is being caused by foreign infiltrators ... the study showed that foreigners may comprise as little as 4% of the "insurgents" ...

assuming through diplomacy, we could convince neighboring states to shut off 100% of foreign fighters before they could enter Iraq, and the article suggested that countries like Syria have virtually no ability to do this, what would be the objective of a diplomatic approach ??? if 96% of those fighting in Iraq are native Iraqis, how will using diplomacy with neighboring states help end the war and bring peace and stability to Iraq ???

[Wordie]

24. Whatever one's conclusions, this thread has some good thoughts.Recommended

[paineinthearse]

26. grrrrrrrrrr

This is such an important piece of information, I am a bit pissed off it got so little attention and just 4 "greatest" nominations.

Maybe the admins will salage it and move to the HOME page.

You can lead a horse to water....