Free Iraq

"Very early in the occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration recognized that a democratic Iraq, even a stridently anti-Saddam one, would not countenance the strategic U.S. goals the war was fought for: controlling the second-largest oil reserves in an energy-thirsty world, and establishing military bases required for undertaking the political transformation of the Middle East to serve American interests.
A long-term occupation to secure these ambitious goals was no less tenable.So even as the Americans proclaimed their mission as one designed to introduce democracy and human rights in Iraq, they fought against demands for early elections even from putative allies like the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They also maneuvered to put into place a self-governance and electoral plan that, through carefully circumscribed United Nations involvement, they thought would ensure that the hand-picked Iraqi leadership would enjoy some legitimacy, with the elections scheduled for Sunday providing an added boost of Shiite support.
But as this blood-stained election shows, the complete breakdown of this plan has been one of the most colossal U.S. policy failures of the last half-century. Indeed, this is not an election that any democratic nation, or indeed any independent international electoral organization, would recognize as legitimate."
Iraq: This election is a sham January 28, 2005

"We must withdraw our military from Iraq, the sooner the better. The reason is simple: Our presence there is a disaster for the American people and an even bigger disaster for the Iraqi people. ... It is a strange logic to declare, as so many inWashington do, that it was wrong for us to invade Iraq but right for us to remain. ... A recent New York Times editorial sums up the situation accurately: "Some 21 months after the American invasion, United States military forces remain essentially alone in battling what seems to be a growing insurgency, with no clear prospect of decisive success any time in the foreseeable future.'' And then, in an extraordinary non sequitur: "Given the lack of other countries willing to put up their handsas volunteers, the only answer seems to be more American troops, and not just through the spring, as currently planned. . . . Forces need to be expanded through stepped-up recruitment.
... Here is the flawed logic: We are alone in the world in this invasion. The insurgency is growing. There is no visible prospect of success. Therefore, let's send more troops?
... The definition of fanaticism is that when you discover that you are going in the wrong direction, your double your speed."
Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home January 22, 2005

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Who are the insurgents and are they linked to al-qa'ida?
Where is the anti-war alliance now?
Do iraqis feel liberated?
Is Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, a us puppet?
Is the UN relevant any longer?
Will the kurds try for statehood?
How long will the soldiers stay?
Is there a humanitarian crisis?
How many died in the war?
Was the war legal?
Did the allies stick to the Geneva conventions?
Did bush's cronies get the biggest contracts?
Has the Rumsfeld doctrine been vindicated?
Is this the first step to reordering the middle east?
What about Saddam?
Does growing Shia power mean an increase in Iranian influence in Iraq?
What was the war really about?
Astonishingly, two years on there is no clear answer. The Bush White House claimed the invasion was to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and destroy a regime that was linked to terrorism. When the WMD failed to materialise, the war was justified (on legally shaky grounds) as a mission to remove an odious and repressive regime, the first step in a democratic transformation of the Middle East.
In truth, Iraq was at the top of the administration's hit list long before 9/11. The neo-conservatives in charge of US security policy had been calling for Saddam's overthrow for five years or more. This they argued, would give the US a new strategic base in the Gulf to replace Saudi Arabia. It would place the region's second oil producer firmly within the US orbit. It would step up the pressure on Iran, meeting a longstanding desire of Israel. Finally, there is a family factor: did Bush the son invade to finish the job started by Bush the father? Somewhere in this mixture of fear, grand strategy and blinkered ideology lies the explanation for the war.
Is the world safer now? January 28, 2005
(This is a very well researched document of facts we all recognize. Most of the facts behind what happened is brilliantly researched and put together.
This is a good document for history [and posterity] and for those who will still be around to witness the end of this trauma, if it will come.
Yahya Al-Witri)

Look, we have to .........


After the Democratic Elections (swipe Rice for Powell)


While by the way...