Scott Adams: We Should Leave Iraq. Here’s Why.

Scott Adams (yes, of Dilbert) has a weblog. Who knew? (Well, a whole lot more people than know about, clearly, judging by the volume of his comments.)

And it’s not just some marketing come-on exhorting you to read the comic strip. It’s a real, grown-up weblog, running on Typepad and with an open comments section. And Adams writes about real, grown-up weblog topics. As in this recent posting, on why we should leave Iraq: Complicated decisions.

One Response to “Scott Adams: We Should Leave Iraq. Here’s Why.”

  1. danielet Says:

    There are two terribly paralyzing cans tied to the
    tail of US troops patrolling anywhere in Iraq: 1) oil
    and 2) Israel’s interests via the neocons. The first
    has been dealt with only by the Vice President under a
    cover of official secrecy. And the behavior of Mr.
    Bremer went a long way to suggest that Iraq’s oil
    might well have become the exclusive property ad
    perpetum, were it not for the UN’s intervention in
    making clear that such contracts were not allowed by
    the occupying power. The second is down right
    outrageous. The neocon mantra– if it’s good for
    Israel it HAS GOT TO BE GOOD for America– has tainted
    every single American move in the Mideast. It has made
    the US occupation a cover for Mossad fragmentation of
    Iraqi ethnic-religious groups. The irony of Bush
    turning Iraq over to Iran run Shia (SCIRI) state at
    the expense of Iraqi nationalists Shia (so recognized
    even by the Sunnis) under Sadr while the US seeks to
    impose loss of Shia Hezbollah domination of Lebanon,
    though it is the largest group in that country (Shia
    also a majority), has confounded the meaning of the
    American role in the Mideast.

    The Woodward book seems to miss one critical component
    of the Rumsfeld Saga. While Bush was the presidential
    candidate neocon seed-money financed in the early
    march trough the Republican primaries of 2000,
    Rumsfeld was their key man. He and his troll, Cheney,
    were advised to join the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld
    was told to take DoD and win a quick war in Iraq to
    make himself famous. Then, since they insisted Bush
    would not survive to a second term, he could be the
    Republican hero to step into the candidacy. At the
    same time, utterly incompetent but inbred
    neocon-juniors were put all through DoD to dilute
    Wolfowitz and assure that Rummy abides by the neocon
    program. The old Bolsheviks once more got their way as
    shadows influencing their man. The key to this
    operation’s Iraq occupation was Bremer. For he informs
    us the the pulverization of the Iraqi military and
    civil service was ordered, not by Rumsfeld, but by
    Feist. That way, Rumsfeld evades blame for
    short-circuiting the oblivious president and the
    neocons get the digested and helpless Iraq they
    wanted…an Iraq, ready for Chalabi to take-over;
    that’s what they wanted.

    Unfortunately for them, Bush was fully informed by the
    CIA that Chalabi is run by the Iranians. And so,
    Frankiln got that to them through AIPAC a bit too
    late. Chalabi was cut off and arrested trough a
    DoS-Iraqi Provisional Govt. maneuver that Bremer was
    not privy to; and so, DoD was stuck occupying Iraq
    without a plan, Rumsfeld having thrown the
    British-American occupation plan into the garbage
    before the invasion. Sec. of State Powell had insisted
    on DoD exclusive responsibility for Iraq so that Rummy
    alone would be blamed for the failure.

    Israel got the pulverized Ba’athist Party it wanted so
    that it would no longer be a threat to it– hoping
    that Syria would be the next– but, as Netanyahu had
    predicted, the giant American ally was now stuck in
    and sinking in Iraq, despite Israeli assistance and
    advice on how to occupy an Arab land. Not long after,
    the neocons– diagnosed already as abnormal by
    Sharon– desperately sought to extend the American
    invasion to Syria, then Iran, but to no avail.

    Bush DID survive to win a second term and he kept
    Rumsfeld in office so that Rummy can be made to take
    blame for Iraq from soup to nuts when the time to
    pull-out comes. Cheney was kept on the ticket, but
    after victory was isolated, while Rice– with a full
    green light form the President– revitalized DoS as
    the operative control of US foreign policy.

    Before the invasion by US forces, like all other
    Arabs, knowing he could not hold back the US, Saddam
    planned a Stalin-type resistance for after the
    Americans take Baghdad. Then, seeing themselves with
    no income while Halliburton, for its own security,
    flooded Iraq with Third Country nationals as
    employees, the hardest hit by the unemployment, the
    Sunnis, flocked to the Ba’athists Resistance. Bremer
    thought that Alawi was a secular alternative for
    Chalabi. But all in all, from the wild days of looting
    onward, Iraqis came to conclude by observing the
    Bremer-run occupation that the Americans in-country
    are both idiots and crooks. Last count, $9 billion
    worth of “reconstruction” aid is missing. Two strands
    developed amongst gun-abled men in Iraq: 1) hate of
    occupation and revenge seeking in return for violence
    and insult visited on their families by US troops; 2)
    criminality– this is the largest group– forming
    gangs or selling services (you can have anyone killed
    in Baghdad for $20) and other illicit activities who
    today are responsible for most of the killing of
    civilians as they carve out fiefs.

    There is now only one solution possible: FOR AMERICA
    TROOPS. Incompetence is forgivable should it be clear
    that the occupation will come to an end. But America’s
    good-will is unbelievable when the issue is continued
    occupation. An thus, no Iraqi leader is believable
    when sustained by the occupiers. Any contact with
    Americans leads to discrediting of the involved Iraqi.
    Only the SCIRI officials can get away with it because
    they are known to be Iran stooges and are duly
    supported efficiently and lavishly.

    The key issue is that Americans are staying in Iraq
    for a reason– most assumed by Iraqis are reasons in
    support of US or Israeli interests. Currently, most
    violence is visited by Shia and Sunni gangsters on the
    professional class of both Shia and Sunni sides, on
    the assumption that these groups have money and can be
    extorted. Lest America sets a date soon, there will
    not be educated Iraqis left alive (over 100,000 have
    left Iraq) to provide services in the country. Setting
    a date will produce immediate “entre-Irakiens”
    negotiations for the formation of some sort of truce,
    as the French keep insisting. But without a clear sign
    that the occupation is coming to an end Iraq is
    doomed. The Bush meeting with Hakim, leader of SCIRI,
    was meant as a substitute for meeting with Iran. But
    it is to no avail until the US clearly shows that it
    is giving up its occupation in force of Iraq. US
    advisers dispersed, not the the Iraqi army, but to all
    Shia and Sunni village militias will, as in Vietnam,
    create the self-confidence needed to promote
    concessions and national unity. But Sadr must be shown
    that Iraqi nationalists are those favored by the US,
    not Iran lackeys. The US must make a truce with him so
    he can feel safe to reconcile with the Sunnis against
    the Iran run SCIRI before we withdraw.

    Daniel E. Teodoru

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.