U.S. coming to accept that we are largely powerless to control what happens in Iraq

[bigtree]

As Iraq votes, U.S. content to keep its distance
‘We can’t and we will not tell them how to conduct their affairs’

AS Obama administration officials tried in recent weeks to anticipate what could go wrong in Sunday's elections in Iraq, they realized with some relief that they are largely powerless to control what happens.

In twice-daily meetings leading up to the vote and in a final preelection videoconference Thursday with the U.S. ambassador and military commander on the ground, officials contemplated the possibilities. Violence, intimidation or fraud might limit turnout or mar the legitimacy of the vote. Post-election political jockeying could delay the formation of a government for months and leave a dangerous power vacuum. Iran could create mischief, or worse.

But beneath the last-minute activity in Washington, officials have recognized that the electoral contest and its aftermath are in the hands of the Iraqis. Nearly seven years after U.S.-led troops took over Iraq, the administration appears content with its changing role there.

Committed to halving the contingent of nearly 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by summer's end as he escalates a red-hot war in Afghanistan, President Obama has set a high bar for intervening — or even acknowledging serious concern about the future.

In a briefing at the White House last week, senior advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity hammered home two messages: "We can't and we will not tell them how to conduct their affairs," an official said of the Iraqis. "That's up to them." In addition, he said, "we see nothing that would divert us from the track we're on . . . to end the combat mission in August," even in the face of sectarian violence.


read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35748431/ns/world_news-washington_post/

related:

A Clear Iraq Exit
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree/1360

[dysfunctional press]

1. well...THAT was money and lives well spent, huh?

it'll serve us right if there's a military coup, and al-sadr becomes a worse tyrant and more aggressive than sadaam.

[bigtree]

2. I'm good with whatever narrative the administration chooses

. . . to accompany our troops as they pull them out of Iraq. I won't easily tolerate any excuse that has them staying past the stated deadline.

here's al-Sadr on the election process: http://news.brunei.fm/2010/03/07/al-sadr-declares-support-for-iraqi-polls/


NAM NEWS NETWORK Mar 7th, 2010

TEHRAN, March 7 (NNN-KUNA) — The Iraqi cleric, Muqtada Al-Sadr, often dubbed by the media as a firebrand clergyman, called on eve of nationwide elections at home on his countrymen to head to the ballot stations in waves.

“Choosing the faithful to represent the people in parliament would pave way for ending the foreign occupation in addition to serving the people without sectarian discrimination,” said the active young Shiite cleric, known for his fiery anti-Western attitudes.

Speaking at a news conference, Al-Sadr said the voters should choose the candidates who would serve the people, not those who would serve their parties or “enemies of the Iraqi people.”


Al-Sadr said his “rejection of the occupation” does not mean that he is against the electoral process, calling upon his compatriots to wage what he termed “political resistance through the participation of the polling.”

The cleric, whose followers had engaged in armed violence in the past, urged them to refrain from any acts of violence in case the polls were rigged.

“There are certain legal mechanisms that should be abided by and there must be no violence whatsoever to manifest rejection of the results of the legislative polls,” he stressed.

more . . . http://news.brunei.fm/2010/03/07/al-sadr-declares-support-for-iraqi-polls/

[FormerDittoHead]

8. Glad to see we've learned the lessons of Vietnam.

:sarcasm: of course. The proof that we didn't learn those lessons was that, after not finding WMD's, we didn't hang Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice in April 2003 for completely lying us into a major war.

I could barely imagine a worse crime, and they're out writing books and making speeches.

[dysfunctional press]

10. "they're out writing books and making speeches."

and getting paid handsomely.

[90-percent]

3. To this day

To this day I'm still trying to figure out who benefited from our Iraq invasion?

Did the USA get the rights to the oil in Iraq or didn't they?

Are Bush and Cheney and the people they serve happy about how it all turned out? I really have no idea. To me it looks like war just for the hell of it?


-90% jimmy

[rucky]

4. Halliburton.

that's all I can think of for sure.

[90-percent]

5. Halliburton

America and the world would have been much better off to merely pay them a bribe for the same amount as they got paid in Iraq.

"Here you go, Halliburton. 2 trillion in cash. It's all yours if you simply don't make us go to war for you to get it."

You get your money, our troops get to stay home. It's an American Taxpayer payoff to bypass the pretenses of going to war to get your fucking war profiteer monies!

-90% jimmy

[bigtree]

7. political folly with all of the trimmings

Patronage of the Bushies and Cheney to Saudi Arabia probably sparked the first wave of attacks on Iraq. Junior and Blair went into Iraq with the expectation of 'drawing a line in the sand' after 9-11; real delusional stuff about the projection of American power. And of course, all of the largess from the industry regulars that the Bush administration knew intimately came along for the ride. We correctly identified the war-profiteers and the administration's promotion and coddling of them; from the general contractors to the defense industry mainstays who got their faltering stream of tax dollars back on line; and there was our 'interim government's' opening of Iraq to foreign investment which hadn't been done before in their history. That was a free-for-all in which there were short term benefits for industry and investors and some long term ones. We seem to have gotten the short straw on the oil (no matter, the Saudis got the suppression of, and control over Iraq's oil market and successfully prevented Saddam from gaining a seaport or coming out from under the sanctions. I think the long occupation squeezed whatever the Bush minions could from Iraq and the era of Bush and Cheney has faded and will meld into the next generation of opportunists who can find influence with the emerging authority there.

[ixion]

12. BushCo and their partners

that's who.

[TwilightGardener]

14. MIC--I see it everyday where I live. Lots of big shiny new buildings in the

last 7-8 years for defense contractors.

[sendero]

6. We can all take a certain grim satisfaction..

... that we've been saying this all along. Iraq will descend into Iraqness the day we leave, and we cannot stay forever.

We should have never gone there in the first place.

[madrchsod]

9. mission accomplished...iran and iraq are once again friends!

it would have been better just to bribe saddam from pegging his oil to the euro....

[Bitwit1234]

11. Hey where are all the purple fingers. Remember when Jingledell

was running around with his stuck up in the air, because the REPUBLICANS LET THE IRAQI HAVE A FREE ELECTION...guess when they do it under democrats it don't count.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Good--glad that they're not going to allow an uptick in violence to

deter them from withdrawing. If that was the case, we'd never leave.

[bigtree]

15. so far, that's been the administration's consistent position

. . . up to as late as Wednesday:

Iraqi Elections, U.S. Drawdown to Proceed
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 3, 2010 – Iraq’s upcoming elections and the U.S. drawdown of troops there later this year will go on undeterred by suicide bombings today and previous attacks like it, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said today.

“Neither this attack nor any of the previous attempts to derail the electoral process and to destabilize the government have been or will be successful, nor do we anticipate that it will derail our responsible drawdown of forces in Iraq,” Morrell said at a Pentagon news conference.

The United States has about 96,000 servicemembers in Iraq and will maintain that level in the weeks following the March 7 national elections, Morrell said. That troop strength is necessary to provide for a peaceful transfer of power, he explained. “But once that has been established, we are prepared to draw down dramatically” to get to President Barack Obama’s goal of having 50,000 troops in Iraq by Sept. 1, he said.

Suicide bombers attacked two police stations and a hospital just outside Baghdad in Baqouba early today, reportedly killing dozens of people. “It’s disgraceful, it’s deplorable and we strongly condemn it,” Morrell said of the attack, but he added that it would not deter the election or U.S. troop drawdown.

The elections mark the third time Iraqis have gone to the polls since the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the second time under the current constitution, Morrell noted. They are the first Iraqi national elections to take place without a large-scale insurgency and widespread sectarian violence, and unlike previous elections, he said, no major political parties or ethnic groups are boycotting the elections.

The United States and international organizations, including the United Nations, are assisting the Iraqi Independent High Commission as needed, “although frankly, they haven’t needed much,” Morrell said. Iraqi forces are leading security efforts, he told reporters, and U.S. stand ready to assist them if called upon.

“The bottom line is, this is the Iraqis’ election, and all indications are that they are more than prepared to pull it off,” he said.


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58165

[bigtree]

16. .