Has the author ever read about Vietnam because the parallels are uncanny.

Truth is the first casuality in war and Iraq is no exception. Voters will need a lot more smooth thetoric than this to stomach more slaughter. Make war to have peace, what a joke!

Corney
there are very few parallels with Vietnam that I can see.

Yes there are some. But Iraq is more about which faction/sect runs the show and reclaiming lost privilege than the more pure nationalism of Vietnam.

The Vietnam war was lost by 'democracy'(and a free but partisan press) rather than anything else.
On this point there may be a parallel, but this remains to be seen.

Vietnam was not 'tribal' in the same way Iraq is. The religious element was also not present in Vietnam.

Personally, I feel the 'course' which should be stayed in Iraq, is to partition and dismember the country along racial lines. Kurd, Sunni and Shia areas. Turkey won't like it but stiff for them.
Any course which sees a government of national unity in Iraq, is doomed. Its not me saying that, its history. I wish it were otherwise.

The time it would take to establish such a unity government is GENERATIONS not a few years. But the dark hands of Iran and Syria would never allow this to happen. So, again.. I believe its doomed.

Cut our losses, rejoice in the removal of a tyrant and his offspring, and either partition the country or let them fight it out till last man standing.

I think that second alternative would see a strong Sunni push to retake the place (supported by Syria) and a Shia response aided by Iran. I feel the old Iraqi armed forces units are still intact and so is their command structure. It's just invisible to Western eyes.

The only other alternative is one of utter Brutality and mass executions, similar to that perpetrated by Gengis Khan when the head of his ambassador was sent back by the Persians. The West has not the stomach for that approach because it is contrary to our most basic values. All alternatives are pretty grim, but I'd like to see if democracy can thrive and would love to be proved wrong here. but don't ask me to pull the levers.

"the only way for the US and Australia to get it right in Iraq is to commit to doing whatever it takes for as long as it takes to at least leave things - income levels, child health, sanitation and security - as we found them"

Well, yes. The moral obligation is clear, but is there ANY chance of this happening? Our moral foundations got lost in the 2 minutes it took for America to point the finger at Iraq on Sept 11.

How indeed to make reparations to the people of Iraq. If this is truly a democracy, then we are all culpable in war crimes.

Do we think that money and treasure are sufficient?

Ask yourself, "How much for your children, habib?" No amount will ever be enough, will it?

This is the truth that dare not speak it's name:

That the assorted warhawks, war-liars, war-politicians and war-profiteers be delivered up with bags on their heads and ties around their wrists, to the mercy of the grateful people of Iraq.

- and may someone's god have mercy on their souls.

*

David. Your facts re the difference between the Vietnam and Iraq wars are true. The faction/sects are religion based. I have wondered if the war planners pre invasion of Iraq took into account the problems they would encounter from this. Religious wars are never won. The gravest scenario possible since WW2, would have been an outright war between the eastern and western blocs. Because of Deterrent defences it never happened. But what if Moscow had been ruled by Mulahs,makes you think dosn,t it

If there's a case for 'staying the course in Iraq', Leslie Cannold has failed to make it. The analogy of the pottery store rule - 'you break it, you own it' - is a gross misapplication of the moral obligation principle.

You go into a shop at the explicit wish of the owners. They want you in because you might buy something. To extend Cannold's absurd analogy, the USA and its abettors broke in to the store and proceeded to wreck it - against the strong protests of most other store keepers.

I agree with Cannold that there's a duty owed to Iraq to see that the damage to such things as the incomes of Iraqis, their child health, sanitation and security is made good. (Although I wouldn't use her patronising language - 'our way of saying “sorry” for all the intervening inconvenience and suffering'.)

But her argument is weak. While acknowledging that 'the Bush administration has been so corrupt and incompetent in its prosecution of the war and peace', she asserts that they should stay to do 'whatever it takes for as long as it takes'.

Why would the Iraqi people trust these 'corrupt and incompetent' people? The bitterness and hatred of Iraqis will not be overcome for decades. The troops symbolise the tragedy - their mere presence rubs it in every day. American companies like Vice-President Cheney's Halliburton are making a 'killing' - a tragic pun. (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html)

There are better options. For example, instead of spending billions on standing armies (at enormous costs including further certain deaths all round), why not get the vast majority of the troops out and divert the equivalent American and Coalition resources into UN supervised reconstruction and reparations programs? That way the destroyers would meet their obligations to recreate what they have destroyed - and pay for it in more positive ways.

I would also make it much more difficult for American companies to cream off large sums of money intended for Iraqi reconstruction by tight probity checks, public scrutiny of all contracts and Iraqi-appointed watchdogs.

Oh Leslie

If you weren't so clearly ignorant of the situation in Iraq I'd suspect you'd sold out merely to be anti-Labor.

You know there is little opportunity for Western aid workers in Iraq to do any rebuilding. Its too dangerous. The few aid people there need to sleep in bunkers in the Green Zone (fortress) of Bagdhad and have armed escorts whenever they travel out of it.

Most Iraqis dislike/hate Westerners - for good reason. The longer Coalition troops are there the longer they will have to fight (and be fought by) Iraqi insurgents supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The country is in a perpetual state of counterinsurgency. Fighting, guns, no hearts and minds or rebuilding for years.

Cornflower

I agree that the parallels with Vietnam are clear.

As in Vietnam - we had to bomb villages to liberate it - hey Leslie?

Leslie's primitive logic "you break it - you own it" forgets that the Coalition has no God given right (sorry Boazy) to own Iraq.

There has been no discernable progress (in terms of lower civilian casualties) from the current troop levels in Iraq.

So how can a continued presence improve the situation? Would Leslie want to increase the numbers of Coalition (including Australian) troop levels - in line with Mr Howard's policy?

Pete

Could Leslie please tell us where there is a higher authority to carry out what she suggests in poor bloody torn-up Iraq?

With the United Nations having proven pretty well useless, and the Christian God which George Dubya so much relies on has apparently failed, what are we left with?

Well, once again we are left with dear old Socrates, whom history books say did really say something like - Out with the Gods and in with the Good.

Please take note that the musings of the old feller, written by both Plato and Aristotle, did help Thomas Aquinas get Christians out of the dreaks of the Dark Ages and later into the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment. Thus it was again later the German philosopher Immanuel Kant took it up, and did warn us about letting one personage take charge of the world like George W' sits on the unipolar throne right now.

Reckon the above says it all - and it is gratifying to note that our OlO's are now showing much more than a mite of common sense.

Bushbread,
I agree with you, Islam is not conducive to democracy anyway, the longer we stay in Iraq, the more innocent civilians are killed. A pity the coalition of the willing didn't find any WMD's at least they then could have had some justification for the invasion, except oil.

Australia needs to become more independent and not be grasping on the coattails of the U.S of A. I express it this way because many people say "the Americans" which is made up of 2 continents, and many nations.

We should do what PM Curtain did, bring our troops home to protect our own country, after all the ADF, is the Australian Defence Force.

BOAZ_David

You recommend a partition yet you cannot see any parallels with Vietnam?

Then you say that the Vietnam War was lost because of democracy and the media? Do you honestly believe the crazy spin that the war could have been won if only the voters had been kept out of it?

Quite clearly you (and Bush) have learned nothing from Vietnam and it follows that neither you nor he and his advisers understand, for example, that an occupying force, especially one that cannot engage successfully with the community, will always be seen as the enemy, even by its apparent supporters.

Boaz, I have just joined that long list of people who have come forth to respond to you while shaking their heads in disbelief at your very odd world view and strange twist on things. However it will be my first and only reply to you. You see, what most people use OLO for is to venture an opinion and they hope to learn something from the responses of others.

But obviously from your insulting pun on my name and the tone of your comments that is not what you are about, is it? So have a good day and in future (at least insofar as I am concerned) you can keep your games to yourself.

I don’t care about Iraq, the conflict there, or Iraqis themselves.

What concerns me is that, as it was with the unnecessary US/Australia involvement in Vietnam, there could be flotillas of boats bringing bogus refugees to Australia after a pullout.

As it was with the Fraser government, these bogus refugees would be allowed in – because of some weak-kneed sense of shame – by an equally weak Howard government.

This would further accelerate the slide to an even more mongrel Australian society, and the death of Western culture in the southern hemisphere

David: I can’t see how partitioning is an answer. It has never worked- Cypress, Northern Ireland, Korea, Vietnam, Palestine aren’t exactly poster-boys for the success of partitioning. And I can’t see it working here. How do you divide the nation’s resources- oil, water, arable land? How do you give equal access to seaports and roads? What happens if immediately afterwards Saudi annexes the Sunni areas and Iran annexes the Shiite areas? What do we do if instead they degenerate into anarchic states that are sitting on top of a significant chunk of our remaining oil supplies- invade again?

I agree with Leslie in as much as 'you break it, you bought it'. However, continued presence of the Coalition of the Willing is not the right answer. We need a better authority and, here, I agree with FrankGol- the UN is the only answer. Only through active involvement of an extra-territorial authority can any progress in the reconstruction of Iraq progress.

Bushbred- the UN is no more or less the sum of us as world players. If it doesn’t work then the fault resides with us. It was the US who unilaterally decided that its own interests were more important than the rest of the world and plunged us into this mess, not the weakness of the UN. In many areas the UN functions extremely well- it is now time to expand those successes.

What we need is an authority in Iraq that can command some respect from the majority of the population. We also need to have external parties such as US, Iran, Saudi and others back away while the reconstruction is progressing. Making the area a protectorate of the UN would eliminate the impression that one country is building the Iraqi government as its own stooge. This is a bold move but the only way to restore some legitimacy to the reconstruction efforts.

If we just pull out now then we will be forced back in later simply by virtue of our dependence on the region’s oil reserves. And it will be much bloodier the next time.

Obviously, Australia's concerns are a bit closer to Indonesia than the Middle East, but as the U.K. has announced plans to pull back, Australia has announced plans to increase involvement in Afganistan.

The politics of war notwithstanding, it seems Australia and the U.S.A. are now growing closer as allies. This is excellent news for me, and other Americans, because over the last twenty years, Australia has emerged as one of the world's great science and engineering centres ... but few in the U.S.A. realized this. Sure, U.S. investment was made in India, in China, in Europe ... but these people do not share our vision as does Australia and her people.

I would like to see both of these wars end as soon as possible. Then I would like to see an ever-increasing cooperation between Australia and the U.S.A. ... not simply a few public appearances, or a few research projects.

Rather, I envision a new age of U.S.A. and Australian cooperation ... not in war, but in peace. In solving problems of desalination, air pollution, quantum computing, aerospace, agriculture, medicine, energy and basic science. Finally, I hope that we Americans can become more like Australians, and move beyond our sometimes material concerns to develop a deeper appreciations for the genuinely good things in life ... nature, family and friendship.

Given that the US needs to import 12.5 million barrels of crude oil a day and that Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia combined produce 13 million barrels a day. There will be no withdrawal of US troops until the oilfields and exports are secured.

"Defeat" means a collapse of the US economy. Thats explains why they are there.

But why are we there? Afghanistan is where the terrorists were, why did we not see through the lies.

PLANTA... mate.. I don't recall suggesting that we have a divine right or calling to invade Iraq..but I take the dig on the nose :)

Myla.. you raise a very interesting and as yet unexplored point !

"How do you give equal access to seaports and roads? What happens if immediately afterwards Saudi annexes the Sunni areas and Iran annexes the Shiite areas?"

This particular scenario had not occured to me in the past but I actually think its A GOOD IDEA ! yep..I do.. at least that way, (as long as they can make a suitable arrangement regarding guarantee of oil supply to us) the ratbag element of each side will be held in check by the large 'Father' figures of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
That doesn't solve the problem for the Kurds, but maybe you have a suggestion ?

All your points are valid... I don't see any easy solution to this.

FRANK.. you mention about restoring all the services. That would be good, but do you think this could be done without such services being hijacked by the current sectarian groups ?

CORNFLOWER.. woops.. SORRY ! believe it or not, poking fun at ur nick was the furthest thing from my mind.. I was using our Aussie 'Jonesy' for Jones.. Billy for William Smithy for Smith approach k ?
So the 'tone' was in your head not my keyboard.
Before responding to your Vietname claim, I went through a timeline of the War from around 69 to 75 and it is clear that the war was lost in the lounge rooms of America.. the TVs. Check it out mate.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1969.html
Sorry if my Australianization of your nick offended u. You are Aussie ?

Indeed Steve, we all abandoned Afghanistan, no questions asked. I doubt they are looking for Osama Bin Laden any more, the search was a sham all along.

Oh dear, now the pottery analogy. So that's the new rhetoric we are supposed to swallow now.

The problem is, the pottery is broken. As the nursery rhyme says; "All the King's horsemen and all the King's men, couldn't put Humpty together again".

At the whimsey of a silly conspiracy theory that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction, some of which could even reach Australia" the US and the Coalition of the willing invaded something that was none of their business. Except of course, oil. The story changed. It was the threat of Iraq's capability. When that was exhausted, it was the war we had to have. When that was exhausted, it was the war for democracy. Now that is exhausted, it is the war to keep democracy.

The fundamentalists drank it in like it was holy water. Fools!

The problem is, there was only ever chaos since invasion and there is no real democracy to defend.

If they have to break up into three countries, let them sort it our with the United Nations, which is what they should have done in the first place.

There is no solution to Iraq. Only Iraq can resolve Iraq. Even TE Lawernce of Arabia made this observation when we fail to understand these cultures.

You expect us to believe another stupid lie?

No wonder God stuck the Australian Parliament house's flag pole thrice in anger. If you are superstitious, do you think God is happy with the Government?

The minute Howard demands to double the troops, the flagpole is struck by lightning thrice.

What do you say to that David? Care to go hunting with Mr Cheney?

Is God "not happy Jan?".

If you support this colonial intervention then war and murder on a massive scale is palatable, and then, all sorts of justifications are possible. Irrespective of 655,000 Iraqi deaths and 3 to 4 million casualties. Certainly, the greatest one sided war in history against a relatively defenseless and already war-devastated country.

For instance, you are not murdering or crippling these people but somehow you are doing them some type of favour such as bringing them democracy. Most people are skeptical that the US using cruise missiles, massive bombing, napalm, or depleted uranium shells somehow equates with democracy.

The latest lie used to continue this murderous rampage to steal the second largest oil supplies is "there is a case for staying the course in Iraq."

What a variety of Online Opinion there is on this one.
So many people, all 'knowing good and evil', and knowing the real reasons and the real remedy.
All up, I reckon it is all very difficult - and has been all along, to know how best to respond.

Most decisions have a downside. Even good well-measured ones.
I must say I was in agreement with some parts of this original article: 'the case for staying'.
Fixing up the mess, to some degree, and staying long enough to do so seems very honourable. (Hard to know how long though).

As to it all being the USA and Australia's fault - no, can't agree.
Iraq had been very provocative, militarily: the Islamic tyrant at the helm, was guilty of many atrocities. As for the WMD's - none found, but, who really knows?
As for harbouring terrorists? I reckon there are a fair few mean ones still there.

As to the theological comments - always intermingled on the threads like this.
Let us be clear, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is sovereign over it all.
But it is pretty poor form to equate this true God, with all poor decisions of Bush and USA.
They are as culpable for their evil, as Islamic nations are for their evil.
We all need the Prince of Peace to profoundly affect our lives and nations.

Some people think that things just happen by themselves, others feel that some things are meant to happen in a certain way.

Here are some Iraq - Vietnam comparisons that most people overlook –

The US armed Saddam so could fight Iran on its behalf. They armed Ho Chi Minh to help him overthrow the French.

Both countries later used those same weapons against the USA.

Vietnam was simply a war against evil. Iraq is represented to the world in the same simplistic way.

They believed that the Domino Theory would spread Communism throughout South East Asia. They believe (or say they do) the same discredited theory will now spread Democracy throughout the Middle East.

The Iraq war has a firm basis in oil. Under the cover of the Vietnam War, bombs were dropped off the coast to assist in the seismic mapping of Vietnam’s undersea oil and gas reserves that would later be exploited by private US corporations. The survey ships finished and left the same day as the last helicopter flew out of Saigon.

This mapping could not be done while Vietnam was a French colony and is one of the many reasons for the current friction between France and the USA.

Things are not always the way they seem are they?

nothing like ye old conspiracy theory, to give us all the wobbles.

Wobbles

"The US armed Saddam so could fight Iran on its behalf. They armed Ho Chi Minh to help him overthrow the French."

A slight edit. The US Office of Stratetefic Services (OSS), precursor to the CIA, armed Ho Chi Minh TO FIGHT THE JAPANESE in 1944/45.

After WWII most of the Vietnamese Communists (Viet Minh) weapons were either:
- dug up from their pre 1941 war against the French;
- "liberated" from the Japanese 1941-45; and
- "liberated" from the French 1946 onwards

The US made the mistake after the WWII of heavilly arming the French (eg the Douglas Skyraider "Wog Buster") and transporting French troops into battle rather than permitting the Vietnamese to fight it out and have their own country back.

Parallels with Iraq today?

Definitely.

US Billions $ spent and tens of hundreds of thousands dead?

History repeats itself.

For Oil this time rather than other lost markets or scary Commies.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

The only similarities between Iraq and Vietnam is that in both cases we have had smarmy, left of centre, former bureaucrats as opposition leader who have sought to differntiate themselves by making simplistic political capital out of a very complex situation.

There was no endless lines of voters in Hanoi, braving terrorist attacks to vote in a general election. The reason domino theory ceased after 1975 was because the US and Australia made it clear to the Gang of four and the politbureau that the cost of expansion through armed struggle was very high.

Yet we have deluded bozos who seriously think that the ordinary Iraqi feels more threatened by occupying troops than by bathist thugs. Get real.

The nations who were most opposed to the partitioning of Iraq on ethnic grounds were Turkey, Iran and Syria. None of whom have made any effort to assist in either peacemaking or reconstruction. The only reason partition was left off the options table was because the US needed Turkish bases to support the invasion. That is no longer the case.

More importantly, the safest, most prosperous and well governed part of Iraq is the Kurdish region which has been self governing since the first Gulf War in 1990. Independent autonomy works. And there are, in fact, as many Kurds (20 million all up) in the region as there are Iraqis. So why are we trying to maintain a single entity with three distinct communities while actively discouraging a single community of the same size.

We are failing in Iraq because we gave Turkey a veto over a successful outcome. And they have given nothing in return.

Plantagenet,

You're typically correct about the war with the Japanese but my info suggests that after WW2, Laurence Rockefeller (then assistant to MacArthur) “gave” Ho Chi Minh an extensive supply of weapons (WW2 pre-invasion surplus being held at Okinawa) specifically to help him drive out the French.

By the time they finally beat the French, Ho had already reneged on any deals that may have been made because by then he knew about the oil fields and what the US motives really were. Unfortunately, so did the French.

By the way, I like your site.

Plantagenet, you are right, Mr Powers, about Turkey. They never did want the Kurds to have autonomy or democracy. They had their own selfish agenda. So does Iran, and dare I say, Kuwait.

If Kurdistan is recognised as well as Iraq as seperate, that sounds like a bold, if not daring move. Maybe the EU could tell Turkey to "heal" if they really want to join the EU.

Then its up to the bathists and the shiite ones. The shiites outnumber the bathists, and the bathists are mainly around Bagdad. The British assure up that this area seems to be under control. Maybe this should be New Persia. The rest, well, the shiites will be in a mess for a while.

I dunno, anything is better then just hanging in there making them nervous.

Like the web site too Pete, quite shagadellic.

As to Dr Evil in Sydney with his finger in his mouth with mini me, well, if we keep Mr Bigglesworth happy, Dr Evil is happy. For now.

I must set up my own website one day. I wonder if anyone would bother to look at it. hmmm.

*HarryPotHead* indeed!?
Was that supposed to make it snd cool 4 the kiddies?

I 4 1 do not approve of such elaborate concoctions &
"suckey f_ckey" between the *winza's* & the media.

1 wld hope that Iraq doesn't become reminiscent of earlier drug&testosterone fuelled rampages on the "RoofTops." (HaHaHa)
I'm sure certain parties wld not approve.

But then of course, the *ConspiracyTheorists* will tell U that 1 factor of significance contributing to *charlie's* depression was that *Di* was without her customary V.I.P. "S.atellite S.ecurity."

1 wld also assume that the same mistake won't b made with the young "snorter" *harry*

...Adam...

Wobbles and Saintfletcher

Thanks guys.

Pete

The Iraq government should in place to provide their own security bby year end.

In regard to infrastructure we need to foot the bill for all the rapair work.

And we need to apologise.

There are three main Iraqi communities, none of whom has a divine right to govern the others and none of whom will be given the right to govern the others. So let them govern themselves and tell the Turks where to stick their veto.

Divide the oil revenue on a percapita basis until the other issues are resolved. Withhold a significant portion of it to be distributed only in regions that deliver stable and just governance to it's people. We need to make it clear to ordinary Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis that failing to inform on car bombers has a high monetary cost.

If we disperse the governance then the population of Bagdad can be dispersed as well to their respective regions. It was essentially a Baathist creation, after all.

Hmmm I quote from the header article;
my opposition to the war

It started with a war, but it is not a war now.
The insurgents are civilians commiting criminal acts of multiple
murder. Their major targets are civilians.

The problem is they are arabs and this is the way they think and act.
It may well be that there is no solution. It is similar to the
Palestinian Israeli conflict.
Leaving it to them to solve it ? they have been fighting about this
dispute for more than a thousand years.
Why is it that people cannot accept that there are problems that do
not have a solution ?

The opening bell to both current wars was 9/11, with the fundamentalist purpose to destabilise the U.S. economy. Here in the U.S., we face daily bombardment by political boffins who fancy themselves experts on the subject. They claim the worst thing we can do is give in, lest the "terrorists will win."

But if we take a step back, it's obvious that it is the war itself that is destabilising the economies of both the U.S. and Australia, as well as other European countries. We spend about $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afganistan to fight an enemy that is spending perhaps well less than $10 million a month, maybe even less than $1 million per month. The longer this lopsided spending ratio is allowed to continue, the more destabilised our economies become.

Australia needs state-of-the-art desalination. The U.S. needs an update to its decaying transportation system. We both need an energy and transportation system that are non-combustion based. We need industrial capacity to hold our own against China. None of these things happen as the wars suck down every free kopek. Our 'enemy' is winning the war, because we are losing infrstructure and industrial capacity.

I would say NO, the Iraq was is less like Vietnam, and more like Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. SDI fairly bankrupted the U.S.S.R. because they played by the old Cold War rules of matching the U.S. tit for tat. But while the U.S. spent mostly theoretical money on a plan that never came close to operational, U.S.S.R. spent real money that they did not have on space weapons that were not technically feasible. SDI bankrupted the U.S.S.R., and as such, it was a successful ECONOMIC weapon of the U.S..

That same thing is happening in Iraq and (to a lesser degree) in Afganistan, except this time we're losing. China doesn't see Islamic fundamentalism as a threat, and as such, they seem to be emerging as the winners of these wars, able to build their infrastructure, while the U.S. and Australia begin to rust.