Can Iraq Be "Fixed"?

George Kenney is to be congratulated for pulling together this panel. And it's must listening for all Americans struggling with our involvement in Iraq and how best to end it.

Steve

There are many Gaffneys in this neck of the woods: Waterford, Republic of Ireland, Frank Gaffney — if his ancestors came from this area of the globe — is singularly the most ignorant and evil scion of that great family.

I listened to the podcast and I have to say I totally disagree with what Mr Gaffney has to say regarding the current situation in the Middle East. He warns of great consequences if the US leaves Iraq, especially in the case of Iran. He does this without mentioning the catastrophic influence the US has had in this situation and without talking about the possibility of the US government engaging in talks with nations declared by Bush to be the 'Axis of Evil'. Mr Gaffney, do you seriously believe that a prolonged presence of US forces in the region will not create more resentment towards your nation than there is at this point in time? How do you suggest that by maintaining the current strategy the US will win the hearts and minds of a people when after 4 years of occupation the US has only been able to make things worse for themselves and has destroyed its reputation abroad even among its closest allies?

You seem to be still under the impression that this war had a benevolent purpose as the leaders in the United States claim. Meanwhile, it is clear that there is no real effort to democratise or even stabilise the nation. PNAC itself does not mention stabilisation of the region. It only focuses on the fact that the US needs a presence in the Middle East and that its resources should be safeguarded for US economic interests.

Seen as after years of war the agenda mentioned above becomes clearly more evident, and that the possibility of democratising or even turning the region into something somewhat friendly to the West — wouldn't the safest thing to do be to take the troops out?

Everyone knows that fighting will continue if the US leaves. The fighting will continue even if US forces remain. Let's be clear that although the Saddam regime was a brutal one the fault of opening the can of worms that defines the Iraq we know today lays squarely at the feet of the United States.

In either case — stay or leave mdash; the US has greatly embarrassed itself and there is no FIXING such a situation with an administration that so far has demonstrated no capability of doing anything aside from favoring certain corporations for lucrative contracts and lining its pockets with the hard earned money of the US taxpayer. Even if by some miracle the situation were to get fixed (I struggle to think of what fixing Iraq will even mean at this stage) there will be no such thing as a victory. It is a lose-lose situation so it's probably best that the US leaves and stops exerting its clearly negative influence that has so far has served only to infuriate the world and greatly increase the threat of terror that Bush claimed to be fighting, and has used to get a blank cheque to throw its weight across the entire globe.

One more thing — perhaps you should mention in your speeches that it may be the decent thing for the US to start reducing its nuclear arsenal before it imposes its rules to its convenience on other countries. After all, we can all agree after living through the events of the past 7 years, that the real threat and the real bully is the United States itself. You should be fighting the idea of invading Iran with all your vigour. An attack on Iran would make Iraq look like Disneyland and it might just be the last nail in the coffin for the United States unilateral imperial adventure.

Great discussion. I thought Doug Macgregor and Frank Anderson in particular offered some clear-sighted analyses.

Frank Gaffney's Battle of Britain analogy was disingenuous in the extreme, and reliance on hollow but emotive terms like "Islamofascism" doesn't help anyone in analysing the real problems the US currently faces over there.

Kudos to George for putting the event together!

I listen to the talkers on TV rattle on in endless repetitions of the Admin's original lies that were told to justify the war they wanted, and nobody needed... as if there was ever any mystery about the actual motives. If you are really doing a Lone Ranger operation to get rid of one bad guy and his henchmen... do you grab 7 sq miles of the best land in the capital city of the bad guys' country and announce that you are building a fortress embassy there, and (14?) military bases throughout the lucky nation you have come to rescue, with 1 ton bombs dropped from 30,000 ft.? In diplomacy, don't nations wait to be invited to establish embassies in other countries?... The warmongers in the USA are the greatest danger we face, not the terrorists... they are just resisting takeover by our warmongers...

A two hour discussion of the “clusterfuck” that is Iraq and not one mention of why we’re there and why we’re never going to leave. Is it 4 permanent bases we’re building there or 14? Why don’t we know how many are being built?

I’ve heard moronic discussions of Iraq and oil for years now; and if this demonstrates the level of thinking in Washington, then we are truly fucked. Then, the US is no more; we have succumbed to the history of empires, the only question left unanswered is the manner of our demise.

The one bright hope is that Col. Macgregor’s message gets through to someone, somewhere, who can make a difference. Given the sorry state the US has become, that possibility is zero.

We’ve only managed to kill hundreds of thousands in our pursuit of folly, but then we’re not done yet. Let’s turn this limited fiasco into a worldwide campaign against Muslims, then we can join our brother empire builders of the past and kill our fair share.

We ain’t seen nothin’ yet if the likes of Frank Gaffney have their way.

I listened to this panel presentation. I didn't get it all for some reason, but I heard enough. There was the standard neocon line, and then everyone else. Conspicuously absent was the motivating reason for them to be there in the first place, resources, power and regional control. It never was about Saddam, especially considering that he was Bush1's buddy. And now that the Dems are in control of the House and maybe the Senate, hope is for a big change. Don't count on it. They and the Repugs are all in the same boat. Our whole country has been played for patsies and rubes, and we ate it up. Now, fixing it all is nearly impossible. These slicks have it all locked up. Whats left is to bend over and kiss our a---- goodbye.

Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could sit down and have a civil discussion about Iraq. But I doubt that's going to happen any time soon. This gridlock in Washington has got to stop.