The real fantasy is to believe that a "good" outcome is possible from an illegal invasion and overthrow of a government, followed by allowing the looting and plunder that we allowed, followed by our using the money meant to be used to rebuild Iraq to feather the nests of favored political friends, followed by condoning, if not ordering the torture of at least hundreds of Iraqis, and the bombing of civilian housing.  It would be exceedingly difficult to imagine a scenario where we could have done more harm in a more harmful way in Iraq.  There is no light at the end of this tunnel.

As tpmmal pointed out, we need to make amends by setting up massive reparations funds for Iraq, to be administered by an international body with impecable credentials, such as Heifer International.  The one absolute rule for administering those funds is that no American can benefit from them in any way. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

We have a moron (Bush) and a guy who needs his meds changed (Cheney) in the loop. Until those two losers are out of the loop there is nothing sensible that the USA will be able to do, regardless of our military power.

Tom

There are too many inconsistencies and contradictions within your commentary to take it seriously. As to the specifics of your post, with regard to America being perceived as an all powerful super power whose every action must be intended and never accidental or an example of abject failure, there's probably a bit of that sense among the people in the Middle East. But I think that's true only in a superficial sense of blaming others for problems and looking for the easiest basis for that blame. Remember, these are the same people that effectively destroyed the world's other, prior, super power. So they're not that impressed with the term or the use of "shock and awe."

I can't help but remember when Reagan sent the battleship New Jersey to patrol off the coast of Lebanon. The local papers in New York repeatedly proclaimed that the New Jersey could fire "Volkswagen" sized shells more than twenty miles. Considering that Lebanon of the day was being riddled with explosions from trucks filled with high explosives, I could only wonder at the inanity of the purported sense of might of the Reagan super power. Needless to mention, it was a truck bomb that humbled Reagan's mighty military. The battleship New Jersey and the rest of the American military presence quickly departed from Lebanon and the pages of American newspapers (ignoring the Grenada "wag the dog" raid).

So any impression that an American "super power" is so "super" doesn't hold that much validity.

The underlying theme, without any need for super power status, that some of the events of Iraq of the last few years have been intentional rather than unforeseen or unanticipated, has more validity. But if Iraq were a chess game, the American policy of "stay the course" would have resulted in a stalemate due to repeated moves and positions - or more accurately, an American loss. There really isn't much basis to think that, if America is playing some military chess, that they are anything but rank beginners who just learned that the horse thing moves in an "L" pattern.

Both blind and keenly sighted hate is there in abundance and with that the easy acceptance of any "logic" that might demonize those both worthy and unworthy of demonization. "Super power" is an irrelevant aside other than in the sense of a bully trying to take what it wants and becoming abusive, or more abusive, when the taking becomes difficult.

..................................................
"We must publicly declare we have no intention to occupy Iraq and should renounce any claim to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.."

"We will maintain one base in Baghdad .."

"We may also want to consider having one base within each of the major ethnic regions of Iraq."

...

"We must transfer the power now exercised in Iraq by the U.S. Ambassador and U.S. troops to a recognized international authority. The United States cannot and should not be the face of power in Iraq."
..................................................

I don't think there's much consistency in the above quotes. They almost seem to be the standard line from the Bush group. All nice and sweet but with escape clauses viewed through the barrel of an assault weapon. Adding to the questionable veracity within the quotes is the lack of any declaration that America has no intention to, in any way, take control of Iraq's natural resources and wealth from the Iraqi people. That we, or the international community, with our support, won't allow any such transfer of wealth without full indications of a strong, stable and supported Iraqi government making those decisions independently.

We went into Iraq for the oil. It was never about democracy. It was never about weapons of mass destruction, real or imaginary. It was about oil. Bush himself actually made that clear just recently when he warned about Iraq's oil wealth falling into the hands of terrahists. Gone was any concern about a lack of democracy and freedom. Oil was the primary focus, now and then. The ownership and control of Iraq's wealth must be determined by the Iraqis, without guns pointed at them, or at least American or American controlled guns. It seems without doubt that guns will determine Iraq's future so that's unavoidable.

If we keep bases in Iraq it'll be because that's where the oil is and that's where the rest of the Middle East oil wealth is. We won't be keeping American troops there to ensure a democratic nation. It's about oil, not people or democracy. Oil. Oil. Oil. Troops. Troops. Troops. It was when American troops were seen only guarding Iraq's oil industry at the start of the lawlessness that the insurgency began. A people that had lived their entire lives under repressive propaganda couldn't be swayed by any ersatz Fox News from seeing the obvious. And Iraq is an NRA paradise.

Your call for America to provide for adequate living conditions including sanitary conditions and utilities seems noble, almost as if it were an answer to the old question given to Miss America contestants. At this point the insurgents see anything useful done by the Americans as bad - just as the Republicans saw the Clinton Democratic Party attempt to bring national health care to Americans as bad. War is just another form of propaganda. Protection money is for protection after all. It's that quaint phrase I've seen fairly often lately. Whoever has the "monopoly on violence" rules or .. serves and protects.

I am unconvinced that America can put Humpty...er, Iraq....back together again. The egg has broken into three pieces, vaguely resembling the three Ottoman provinces that Winston Churcill cobbled together into a country called Iraq. Churchill also said that creating Iraq was one of his biggest mistakes.

Perhaps America should reflect on that and pursue a different course.

Bush is going to compromise his position...he is gonna "declare victory and run". 

With Daddy's people, Baker...Casey...et al, now in place can we expect to see more multilateral foreign policy?  I find it intruiging that the suggestion that we engage Syria and Iran in direct talks about Iraq.  On one hand it makes sense because a destabilized Iraq isn't in the best interest of her neighbors.  But, in terms of diplomatic protocol, don't you have to recognize another government before having "official" talks with them?

In my mind the only slim chance we have for a decent resolution is by regional diplomacy.  And who thought, 2 years ago in the throes of "stay the course", that regional diplomacy would be seriously discussed as an option.  It tells me how truly f'd up the Iraq occupation has become. I didn't think it could get any worse, a year ago.  But it has and on the present course it has the potential to get much worse.  Time for a big "course correction"...

Whether Syria and Iran will play ball may depend on what America has to offer.

One may suspect the American willingness to substantial concessions to be the weak point, not Syrian or Persian stubbornness.

Actually, it was the mujahaddin (sp) with the financial support of the Saudis and the Americans that created a Vietnam in Afghanistan for the Soviets. US support for this was Zbigniew Brezinksi's idea. The book, The Looming Tower, explains this in detail. Now Bush has put us in a position where Osama ( one of the main financial backers of the mujahaddin in Afghanistan) can be involved in the humbling of the USA along with the USSR. Can our next President be someone who is well-informed rather than an idiot?

Tom

It seems that the 21st century definition of what a super power is is pretty muddled. Some sort of admixture of old style imperialism, 20th century cold warriorism, bullyism, and who-knows-what-Bushism. It sure isn't any kind of public works miracle worker though.

I've read some interesting proposals by people - some military but not all - qualified by study of and extensive experience in the Middle East.

They agree that the size of the country and the lack of adequate boots on the ground make it impossible to deal with the problems the way we're (not) dealing with them. They suggest that we must concentrate all our troops and rebuilding efforts in one location at a time - the most densely populated area first. Basically forget the rest of the country. When the area is stabilized and rebuilding is well on its way, we move some, but not all of our troops to the next location - don't repeat the Fallujah disaster.

This strategy will present a positive face to the Iraqi people, sort of serve as a model and will reduce insurgent activity simply because of the intense troop concentration.

It's the only plan I've read that makes as much sense as anything will to end the slaughter and begin rebuilding.

Under the cover of the Baker group, Bush will tuck tail and scurry out of Iraq. He will say, "Mission Accomplished" again. Bush's legacy will be one of utter failure. He will spend the next two years trying to change that fact. He will fail, again.

This is what happens when you elect a dumbass to be the president. Particularly one who is an ideologue, an ideologue without any actual ideas.

"... the United States can accomplish anything it chooses." Remember the title of William Fulbright's book The Arrogance of Power? It's sad to see that the arrogance of power lives on in spite of the US experience in Vietnam & Iraq, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, and the French experience in Vietnam and Algeria.

The old line from "Where Have all the Flowers Gone" still applies, "... when will they ever learn? ..."

Tom

"Where Have all the Flowers Gone" seems so dated now, even rather wimpy. It's decade, so disparaged now, was when we said make love, not war, gave each other the peace sign - never the Churchill victory sign - ..."when will they ever learn?" indeed.

Lies are pretty common in foreign policy.
Diplomats often say they can't lie, and one I know better uses to continue with "that's the privilege of their masters".

But Machiavellic lies are by many considered truly harmful for Democracy, as for instance in Hungary.

Can we, by the way, know that saving face is the only reason for staying in Iraq? Maybe there is something else we try to save?