Already Lost?

Read and discuss.

And Iraq hasn’t just turned into what bin Laden wanted Afghanistan to be, it’s turned into something which is a lot better. It’s more centrally located, it has oil, because it has oil the US can’t disengage from it without potentially catastrophic economic consequences. And, even better, it’s a different type of guerilla warfare – it’s an urban insurgency. Those skills are one that al-Q’aeda didn’t have a lot of. They came of age in a rural insurgency. So, as an organization, and as a movement of people who believe in the Caliphate, Iraq’s been a perfect training ground.

[. . .] The plan, now, is as it always has been. Iraq is to be turned into a failed state or a state friendly to the Mujahideen. From Iraq, the newly trained and militant jihadis will be able to destabilize other regions – by which I mean Saudi Arabia. It has always been the end goal, and with a base in Iraq it is much more achievable. And with some of that black gold, or the money from that black gold, in Iraq, in their hands – things will be looking good.
[. . .] Meanwhile, as always, the goal in Afghanistan is to turn Pakistan. Pakistan, the Muslim nation which has achieved a great thing – it has created nuclear weapons and the delivery systems. The northern part of Pakistan is so rebellious that they have fought Pakistani military forces regularly over the last few years and Musharraf is derided as an American lapdog. If the Coalition can be allowed to rile up the locals enough, aided by strategic assassinations and bombings, that the Taliban, who at least kept the peace, look good again then the question becomes how long Pakistan’s proud army, humbled by the Indians and Pakistan’s intelligence service – practically the founders and certainly the long time patrons of the Taliban, will remain quiescent. Already, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, officers refused orders and were court martialed for refusing to fight their own people. If the north rises in a nation humbled a striven by chaos, who knows who may wind up in charge?

Long after Bush has left the scene, the damage will still be increasing…

10 thoughts on “Already Lost?

  1. Save for a few facts:
    -the native insurgency is actually targetting foreign fighters, and begining to ease off on attacking our troops. because
    -Our troops are negotiating with the native fighters to have them lay down their arms for political representation.
    I expect the native fighters to take the deal and then work to drive out the foreign Al Qaeda elements.

  2. Oh, of course, I see. We’re turning the corner. The insurgency is in its last throes.
    Dude, you’re still using last week’s talking points. You aren’t going to get your bonus.

  3. I disagree with this part
    “because it has oil the US can’t disengage from it without potentially catastrophic economic consequences.”
    We also cannot continue to stay because of very real catastrophic consequences. The first step to getting out of a hole is to quit digging.
    I can’t discuss the rest, for some reason it won’t load tonight.

  4. Dave, won’t you help the guy find this weeks talking points?
    I think he needs a little help, steer him in the direction of fresh kool aid, won’t you?

  5. Leaving Iraq means leaving the oil to the Islamic Republic that arises when we leave. It also means much of the rest of the Middle East becomes an Islamic Republic and the oil is eventually denied to the West. This would not have happened had we not invaded, but it will happen if we leave, having invaded.
    The Bush people like to talk about “facts on the ground.” Well, regardless of how we feel about what Bush has done, the facts on the ground NOW are that he has initiated this sequence of events, and we have to deal with things as they are, not as we wish them to be.

  6. I’m starting to think we’ve got to get out and take the consequences sooner or later, just as we had to do in Vietnam. I agree entirely with Dave that those consequences are going to be horrible. Probably much worse than after Vietnam, at least for us, because we were fighting over ideology there, not over vital resources we need to survive.

  7. We actually don’t need their oil to survive. We have our oil. The US produces more oil than Iraq ever did and many of our oilfields are underutilized. It’s just that it’s easier to “outsource” drilling to the middle east. Before W was in office and oil was well under $30 a barrel, much of the West Texas drilling shut down because it was too expesive to pump here. A fraction of the “investment” we have made in Iraq would have been able to raise the level of the US oil infrastructure to an acceptable level. And that’s all without ANWR.

  8. Ryan makes a point but misses the forest [Can I pick up the theme or what?] of American foreign policy which is to use their resources before our own. With $60/bl oil then we should see those ‘too expensive before’ Tx oil fields reopening. Any day now.
    The absense of an energy policy that does not look like a prospectus from an energy consortium is pretty self-condemning, no?
    How have I missed this site?

  9. No one ever mentions the fact that the lion’s share of Alaska oil, and that will include whatever ANWR produces, goes or will go directly to Japan and do absolutely NOTHING to alleviate our dependence on foreign sources.

  10. Calmo,
    Those fields that were closed have already been reopened and we are beginning to tap additional unutilized oilfields. But as Vinnie points out, we export a great deal (the lion share of the alaskan output).

Comments are closed.