We Need a Saddam to replace Saddam: Operation Strongman
By John Amato Thursday Aug 23, 2007 1:01pm
Watch this report from Michael Ware with Wolf. Since Maliki isn't cutting it as the leader in Iraq and there is virtually no government---what is being said is that we need Saddam, but not really Saddam, just somebody that's tough, but not too tough, that can keep Iraq together so that it's still friendly to the US, but that isn't friendly with Iran because that would be bad, Mkay? The tribes were called losers by the White House, but they aren't losers now---so who are the losers?...Now we're hearing about the Musharraf option that people just loved as far back as 2004. Or Operation Stongman as I like to call it...But didn't the Iraqis vote with their purple fingers? Round and Round it goes...As long as the US keeps "surging" along...
Download | play 
Download | play
BLITZER: I don't know about you, but I keep hearing suggestions from some influential elements out there that what Iraq really needs is a strongman, someone not necessarily like Saddam Hussein who was a thug and a killer, but someone, let's say, like a Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or a Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
WARE: Well, look, Wolf, you know, what we're talking about here is essentially what's dubbed the Musharraf option, precisely what you're talking about, putting a strongman in place.
Now, this is something that was -- has been talked about and mooted (ph) since even before the invasion. It's now known that that was the CIA's preferred option for regime change. They said coup d'etat. Cut off the head, put in our own guy and then cut out the cancer of the Iraqi Baathist apparatus as we go.
I certainly know very influential special forces commanders and other leading generals here in the country who have been pushing for solutions just like that since way back in 2004. (full transcript below the fold)
via CNN
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's truly a plaguing question, Wolf, because to be honest, there's no immediate candidates. I mean to use an example from Afghanistan, there is no Hamid Karzai waiting in the wings, as a single political figure who has even the vaguest prospect of unifying this country.
Indeed, let's bear in mind, Wolf, Nouri al-Maliki was not the answer either. He was the compromise candidate of all compromise candidates, with very little support from anyone and absolutely no power. So even he wasn't a solution.
Now, there are a number of people who are out there on the fringes trying to jockey and maneuver. And, of course, Iraq's neighbors -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan -- they're also providing support to some of these potential candidates.
So, really, the question is after Maliki, what happens?
If he goes, will he go constitutionally by, say, a no confidence vote in the parliament?
Or is it going to be a non-constitutional upheaval, like a coup d'etat?
Or, as former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi calls for, an emergency government?
That will be one of the things that determines who might lead next. But, honestly, America has to pick one of the horses in the race and back it because Iran certainly will be doing the same.
BLITZER: I don't know about you, but I keep hearing suggestions from some influential elements out there that what Iraq really needs is a strongman, someone not necessarily like Saddam Hussein who was a thug and a killer, but someone, let's say, like a Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or a Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Forget about democracy for the time being, but get someone who is pro-American, pro-West, but at the same time can get tough and crack down on what's going on there.
What's your sense of that?
WARE: Well, look, Wolf, you know, what we're talking about here is essentially what's dubbed the Musharraf option, precisely what you're talking about, putting a strongman in place.
Now, this is something that was -- has been talked about and mooted (ph) since even before the invasion. It's now known that that was the CIA's preferred option for regime change. They said coup d'etat. Cut off the head, put in our own guy and then cut out the cancer of the Iraqi Baathist apparatus as we go.
I certainly know very influential special forces commanders and other leading generals here in the country who have been pushing for solutions just like that since way back in 2004.
Now, coupled with that, coupled with that, a period of, say, an emergency government with a quasi democracy or a constitution not abandoned, but merely suspended until this place can hold itself together and blunt the Iranian interference. To go with that must be an empowerment of the tribes. Now, it's a very famous line, but back in 2003, the U.S. administration here blithely, glibly said that the tribes have no future in the new Iraq.
Well, how wrong they have been. The tribes are vitally needed to rebuild this country and support whoever can really control this place and keep it an ally of America, as opposed to the mess and the almost anti-American shemozzle (ph) that it currently is.
BLITZER: Michael Ware reporting for us from Baghdad.
Michael, thanks.
WARE: Thank you, Wolf.
Login or Register to post comments.
I think Giuliani would be PERFECT to run Iraq.
The junta apologist cable news anchors will pretend Allawi was just elected
Oh yeah, and then the US could go back and double-cross Giuliani and take him out like we did Saddam.
Excuse me, but wasn't Maliki elected by the people??? Have we all forgot about those wonderfully touching photos of the purple inked stained fingers (I still get weepy over those).
I guess that's how democracy works these days. You get to elect the president you want, UNLESS the mighty USA disagrees with the choice. Then apparently, all bets are off.
I bet the original guy they planned to put in charge was Chalabi. Think about it, the royal treatment we gave him when we took him back to Iraq. It was probably to be his reward for feeding us bullshit about the weapons etc.
Brad @ 3:
good to hear!
Oh c'mon, there must be some monarchy to be restored in the mix somewhere.
If Maliki was elected, what right do we have to replace him? Wingnuts still don't have a handle on this "democracy" thingy.
CIA's option? Well, as I recall the CIA has an amazing reputation for upheaving current governments to replace them with US puppet governments for the benifit of US big business.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8061307149260436858&q=cia+foreig...
This can only go swimingly!
A lobbying firm close to the white house has been hired to help oust malaki. How does that work when a leader has been elected by a democracy?
Heh, Bill Maher has essentially been making this point for years. As has just about anyone who understands the realities on the ground in Iraq. What a sheer and utter waste this misadventure has been. Waste of time, waste of money, waste of lives. The U.S. has destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives at home, in Iraq and around the globe. Heartbreaking.
Oh, and you gotta love this assessment by Ware:
Anyone waiting for the Bush Administration to use that very statement, replacing "Iranian" with "terrorist," to make the Oval Office Orangutan our strongman here at home?
the more we learn about the past and present occupation of iraq, the more we see how totally clueless the administration and the planners of this preemptive invasion truely are. the have misssed on every chance and decision they had or made.
the entire war will end up replacing a dictator with a dictator.
by the way, i remember that a republican president supported another iraqi dictator back in the 80s.. what was his name again? oh yeah.. it was SADDAM.
mission accomplished indeed.
Brad @ 1:
Hilarious!
Does no one remember that during the supposedly awesome, heroic days of Gulf War I, the administration and its pundit worshipers clarified that they *preferred* Saddam to stay in power, unless their *even more preferred* solution of a Saddam-overthrow by some more pliable military tyrant could occur?
They didn't overthrow Saddam back then just because they feared a 'quagmire': they wanted a tyrant to remain in power in Iraq, and they preferred a new tyrant, but an old tyrant they preferred to no tyrant.
Good grief, it's like our national memory is like 5 minutes. What? Did I just say something?
Will revolving door of U.S. puppet regimes be yet another way this is like Vietnam?
wolf "keeps hearing"? fuck me... no fuck him. this is cnn's excuse for a journalist?
this is the same "well, some say" bullshit that has helped to steer our country down a dark alley. thanks wolf. thanks cnn. you guys fucking suck.
and, installing ANOTHER strong man is an american tradition. this what we do better than anything else (ask the rest of the world, they know, at least it is reported on there)
of course the MSM and pundit class just gloss over the hypocritical claims of "spreading democracy" while we talk about installing a new puppet...
if i could punch cnn i would
Because putting in a puppet king worked so well for Great Britain in the 1930's. Becuase overthrowing Mossegegh (sp?) in Iran worked so well in the 1950's. Because democracy only counts when the vote goes your way. Yep, sounds like BushCo to me.
I thought we wanted to get rid of Musharraf as well? I'm having a hard time keeping up here. Wasn't it just a week or so ago that Administration "officials" were urging him to work out some kind of power-sharing agreement with Ms. Bhutto?
And isn't Hamid Karzai known as the "Mayor of Kabul"? Are they saying we need a new "Mayor of Baghdad" now?
Since the Boy King is now Emperor of Iraq, shouldn't it be enough for the Emperor to mount up on his valiant steed and ride out from the Green Zone to enforce his will on "his people"? Will they not bow down humbly before him and yield to his glory and infinite power? Or will they put two in the back of his head, declare victory and go home?
A long time ago Imus was suggesting that we hand the keys back to Saddam, tell him we're sorry about his sons' deaths, no more of his hurting innocent people and we just come back home. This was back when Saddam was in jail over there. Looking back, Imus might have had the answer.
Meet the new boss -- same as the old boss.
Pathetic.
hadenuf @ 7:
What, you mean, the royal House of Hashemite? The Hashemites were the ones who rule of Iraq was given over to after the League of Nations withdrew from the country. They ruled during the intermediate period between the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of Saddam Hussein. I think they still have a member in Iraq; his name is Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein and he's currently campaigning in Iraq to try and turn it back into a monarchy with himself in charge, of course. Don't think that'll work out too well though, but at least he has some history of legitimacy.
David A @ 9:
David A @ 9:
pissed off patricia @ 10:
That is, until that puppet stops taking orders. Then immediately that leader is labeled a "threat" or a "friend of the terrorists" and the US has to go in and set up a costly occupation. At some point, this country will stay the hell out of other country's business...but probably not in my lifetime.
After all, the US knows what is best for other countries....whether those countries like it or not.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
despite his inglorious past, his crimes against conscience and all the negative qualities i could heap on his past...
john perkin's books are an intersting look into how the IMF/World Bank, mega-corporations and the US govt (as if there was a difference btwn these entities) engage in the practice of toppling popularly elected governments and installing corporate teet-suckers. ALL. THE. TIME.
and, if the leaders resist (pay attention nuri al maliki)? they are assassinated.
see:
confessions of an economic hitman
the secret history of the american empire
Karen - and have you notices they are making it harder for folks to leave the country and harder for other folks to enter? In Oregon the National Guard is running an emergency response simulation that many people have suggested is a scenario for declaring martial law. Of course, the local news report had a kindly, chuckling guardsman denying the whole thing and implying that people are just being silly.
Silly me.
....and of course Bush can always remind us how well this approach worked in Vietnam.
Dammit, I want my very obvious predictions to quit coming true.
Why is that at every turn, my pessimism turns out to be optimism in disguise?
What was that quote someone said, about how they didn't expect to try out all 50 wrong ways of doing this, instead of doing it right?
All I've had to do is anticipate the worst thing that can be done at every turn, and that's what Bush does.
Still the war lovers argue that though we were right, we were right for the wrong reasons, so we're still wrong. But they were wrong for the right reasons, so they are still right.
Ah, shemozzle: (Yiddish) a confused situation or affair; a mess
[of course, I understood in the context].
Tony Snow @ 22:
Thank you. [I knew someone would know].
It's such an old trick, it just might play again.
Powkat @ 26:
Oh, I wouldn't put anything passed these guys. Are such fears but silly, alarmist paranoia? I sure hope so. But at this point, better paranoid than taken by surprise.
And I shouldn't get started, but there is (under current Constitutional interpretation) no right to international travel.
As I often said, Saddam worked a lot better than any surge can.
In 1954 we didn't like the idea of the Democratically elected government of Iran was going nationalize their oil fields so the CIA backed a coup that over through that government, then brought back the Shah. The Shah was a thug, and his secret police were feared everywhere. You won't hear a lot of bad things about the Shah because our government spent so much time and money saying good things about the Shah both before and after his death. There are many who would restore his family to the Peacock Throne today.
If some one could dig up an old CBS 60 minutes feature from the early 1980s though, that tells a completely different story. There's also a Mike Wallace interview with the Shah about torture on You Tube U.S Policy has always been that it's ok to have a thug in power as long as he's our thug.
They don't even try to hide what they are anymore. When the the complete overthrow of the media and congress happen? While I was sleeping ten years ago or so? Damn, I'm ashamed of myself for ever believing one word any of them ever told me. It's like waking up from the matrix and realizing your whole life has been a dream.
Is it just me (standard form reply preempted with "yes") or has Michael Ware lost a bit of his sting? He's "softened" over the past few weeks in message and delivery... not saying it to disparage the guy but there was such fire and seeming truth when he was just cutting his teeth on the Cable News airwaves whereas now he seems closer to the beard in thought and substance. I've seen a change recently and I can't quite peg it.
Our real Iraqi strategy: invade based on lies, ignite a civil war that kills hundreds of thousands of people, install a new dictator friendly to the U.S., wonder aloud, why does the Islamic world hate us?
Karen @31.
Can you please elaborate?
Samson- @ 17:
The road to real democracy is hard. BushCo's invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq has set them back at least a couple generations from where they were with Saddam. After we leave, Muqtada al-Sadr will take over and rule Iraq with greater brutality than Saddam, forced upon him by the fanatical opposition of the former ruling Sunnis, which will be financed and supported by Saudi Arabia and Syria. That much is obvious. Yes, the whole operation was a waste of time, money and blood. Yes, all those people died not just in vain, but in a counterproductive fiasco. The only ones to profit from it are BushCo's corporate allies, the arms makers, Halliburton, and mercenaries.
hadenuf @ 37:
Sure, . . . on which part? :)
This administration is going back to doing what it knows how to do best - installing dictators.
I wonder where Felix Rodriguez is hanging out nowadays?
Karen @ 39:
The part about no right to international travel.
Not that that hasn't been my fear for awhile.
Carmikl @ 33:
And when I hear the word 'thug' I think Giuliani.
And Cornpone Fred could be his VP. He may not be a tough guy but he plays one on teevee.
I'm going to urge everyone once again to see 'No End In Sight'. It mentions this very issue. Warlords are the only ones who can unite any portion of the Iraqi population.
"We Need a Saddam to replace Saddam"
Send in Cheney.
Oh, oh! Here comes Ahmed Chalabi to the rescue. If anyone ever wanted to be the dictator of Iraq, it is him.
So, we need a strong Arab leader that has shown that he can work with the US government for the right price. How about Bin Laden? I hear he's looking for work.
As the recently uncovered video ably demonstrates,Cheney--and therefore certainly Bush--knew precisely what would happen once they removed Saddam from power,yet they went ahead and did so anyway.They KNEW they would unleash anarchic forces that would cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Now they've come full circle-time to install yet ANOTHER tyrant to do the bidding of Uncle Sam-and no doubt without a trace of irony or regret.
Maybe they should install Ted Nugent over there.
Put him in a turban and black face and turn him loose.
hadenuf @ 30:
Are you sure? I mean, the Hashemites haven't been in power for decades, and their power derived just as much from the United Kingdom as Maliki's power derives from the United States.
Here's your replacement for Saddam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOoixnNEFQE
Tony Snow, I was being somewhat facetious, but this gang's bag o' tricks is about empty, so you never know.
hadenuf @ 41:
Sure.
In a nutshell, this is how Constitutional interpretation currently works vis-a-vis rights and liberties:
If a right or liberty is considered "fundamental" (whatever that means), any law that infringes upon it, whether a state or federal statute, will be subjected to "strict scrutiny." That is, the courts will force the government to prove that its law is "necessary to
achieve a compelling government interest." Very few laws survive strict scrutiny. Almost none, actually. The government can very rarely satisfy that burden of proof. If the government interferes with a fundamental right, the law will most likely be struck down.
If a right or liberty is not considered fundamental however, laws that infringe upon it will be subjected to "rational basis scrutiny." Think of it this way: As long as the government can come up with some sort of conceivable purpose for its law that isn't balls-out, blithering-idiot irrational, and the law is at least rationally related to that purpose, the law will not be struck down. As you might imagine, the government almost always meets this burden of proof, and the law will stand.
And whose burden is it to prove that a right is fundamental? You got it! The citizen invoking the right. How does a citizen do this? The easiest way is to point out that the right is enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, but very, very few rights are enumerated. Other than that, who knows?
Under current precedent, the right to travel within the United States is a fundamental right. It draws strict scrutiny, and laws that limit it will almost always be struck down. Conversely, the right to leave the United States is not fundamental. It draws rational basis scrutiny, and laws that limit it will almost always be upheld.
If this paradigm strikes you as nonsense, I would have to agree with you. Nothing about this scheme comports with the Constitution's text. In fact, I have written extensively about how it flatly contradicts the Constitution.
And to tie it in with the subject matter of this thread, and hope to stave off a tangential hijacking, I do indeed wonder sometimes whether the war on terror and the chaos in Iraq will lull Americans into an outright embrace of Authoritarian strongmen here at home. I do fear the day when someone argues to the Roberts Court that a temporary suspension of our Constitution should even meet strict scrutiny, as the safety of the American people marks a compelling government interest, necessary to prevent our descent into Iraq-style chaos.
How about putting this one in charge of Iraq?
http://extremecostumes.com/dominatrix44.jpg
Sheesh. We used to be decent enough to be covert with these discussions.
What is Michael Ware Becoming
Take a look at this link. Do you notice anything obvious? There is no mention of Al Qaeda in Iraq influence as Ware explains the major dynamics affecting the war in Iraq. Now look and hear how Ware's explaination of how much influence Al Qaeda in Iraq changes over time. Now here comes the total change of Ware's assessment of Al Qaeda in Iraq's influence.
Trust me on this one; Ware has become the cheapest journalist in Iraq who's opinion is made for CNN's support for this war.
Sometimes the disregard for facts is so great, I am not sure what to believe even when I do research facts generated from the major cable networks. At one time, I thought Ware would be someone I could trust to give an unbias report of the war in Iraq. As it stands, Ware is no better than the so-called "journalist" Fox news employs. My search for a good news reporters continues, and I bet I will not find one on CNN.
Joseph
Bush/Cheney for Iraq '07!
Diogenes @ 45:
Isn't he the minister of oil in Iraq? I'm not kidding.
ysbaddaden @ 52:
No-you want total abject compliance?
Send Pauly Shore over there.Every time anyone gets out of line,he threatens to do his schtick.
Rudy for President.
The rest of the Republican field will be a great cabinet.
Joseph @ 54:
Actually Joseph, I own a copy of PBS's The Insurgency on Frontline that came out in 2005, Ware's view hasn't changed much since then. You can watch the whole program for free online.
Iraq Needed a Benign Dictator
March 19, 2006
Kanan Makiya was one of the most influential members of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, the group of exiles that had been advocating forcible regime change in Iraq for years before the war. Makiya and others from the INC spent large amounts of time working for the State Department's Future of Iraq Project trying to devise the best way to govern Iraq after the Defense Department blew the shit out of it. (All of this work was discarded by the Office of Special Plans.) This interview with Makiya would not be nearly so infuriating if he had not been such a staunch advocate of immediate democracy by any means necessary. While what he says now seems to make sense, at least compared to how the DOD played things out in real life, it makes my blood boil to read this article because of the hypocrisy of it all.
Samson- @ 25:
john perkin's books are an intersting look into how the IMF/World Bank, mega-corporations and the US govt (as if there was a difference btwn these entities) engage in the practice of toppling popularly elected governments and installing corporate teet-suckers. ALL. THE. TIME.
and, if the leaders resist (pay attention nuri al maliki)? they are assassinated.
see:
confessions of an economic hitman
the secret history of the american empire
Thanks for this post. I was thinking the same thing. Iran, Chile, Ecuador, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador...someone else help me out here. I'm sure there are many others.
bush and his whole pack of bastards have shamed the American people
and the true values and morals of a sane world.
emerald @ 58:
Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer?
I dunno, sounds kinda German to me.
So, after we install this new Saddam, I suppose the next Repug Resident (Jeb?) will "be forced" to take him out in 2016?
democrassy or ELSE!!
Iraq needs a "strong man" & "tough interrogations without organ failure"... for the win!
I have an idea for chimpy. How about getting the hell out like Maliki asked several times?
How in the world do they believe a puppetmaster would work? chimpy do you really believe the Middle East will agree with your invasions and occupations? Surging ain't gonna work.
chimpy get the hell out of there and go find your brain cell. Shortsighted dummy.
Strawberry @ 59:
I disagree with you totally. Michael Ware did not start off as a spokesperson for the Bush administration, but if you listen to him now you would swear he's taking Bush agreement pills. In any event, can you point to how Ware's opinion has remained the same?
Joseph
The stage is being set to install Bush's BFF Iyad "Shoots them in the Head" Allawi to replace Maliki.
"But didn’t the Iraqis vote with their purple fingers?"
Yeah, gotta call you out on this one, John. Young republican goose-stepping suits had the purple fingers, implying that THEY voted in Iraq's elections. THEY were on the front lines of the fight for freedom for all Iraqis!
:P
(obviously, I snark and kid)
Obviously, freedom is on the march...
Joseph @ 67:
No he's not. He's saying Maliki and his government have no power what so ever and pushing maliki won't help the situation one bit. He says the surge is working in only a few places we have stepped up security (makes sense) but all the troops in the world won't help if political and economic strides can't be made. The truth. It's like trying to force someone into rehab, you can lock them up, and take away the drugs, but they're not cured and the second they're released will go right back to drugs. As far as Al Qaida goes, he was the first to report how it was morphing, and no one listened to him. He was also one of the first reporter to say early on that there weren't enough boots on the ground from the get go and that the strong arm tactics used against the populace were creating more insurgents than stopping them. If you want a full account of ware's work go to mickware.com and you'll see he's been closer to the truth than any reporter out there. He almost died at the hands of Al Qaida.
What a pity, the one guy who could clean up our mess is the one guy we nearly decapitated when we hung him.
So the truth is finally starting to leak out?
They don't care if the leader is a dictator, as long as he's OUR dictator.
I wonder what percentage of the people saying that this "Strongman" approach is a good idea remember that that's what Saddam himself was a while back. And Iran, and so on. Hell, it was more like an insurgency in that case, but even Bin Laden was a strongman of sorts for us back when.
Have we ever set up a strongman--personally--that didn't turn into an enemy? No, that's not a rhetorical question--maybe there was one somewhere, I'm just not that well versed in history. Could somebody please tell me if this strongman plan has EVER worked for the US in the long term? I'm genuinely curious.
The day we take down Maliki and replace him with Saddam part Two who will in all likelihood become... well, the next Saddam, I'd like to see a nice slideshow of all those congresscritters with the purple fingers on display.
[...] the Webmaster We Need a Saddam to replace Saddam: Operation Strongman » This Summary is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Friday, August 24, 2007 This [...]
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss...
It's way too late for a strongman. What's he gonna do? Lay waste to the entire Iraqi population?
I mean, we have a strongman in there now (US) and we raid houses and torture people all the live long day, but the violence continues.
A strongman would do nothing at this point.
Send Rummy back to buy another Saddam.......he knows the ropes.
nitehawk @ 72:
I thought his head popped off...
if anybody knows whats really going on over there it's Micheal Ware.......no one has been there as long or as deep.......cut the guy some slack.
I nominate strong-man Wolf Blitzer to ride in and save the day. (What an asswipe.)
mudshark @ 79:
I actually do believe that Saddam Hussein, who in his last days suggested the US would require his help to re-establish order, was somewhat correct. He would have known which groups to use to form a coalition. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but maybe the streets wouldn't run with blood every day. Then, once the bloodbath stopped, perhaps rational discussion could be used. I'm sure everyone would like all the killling to stop. Then we could work on the future together.
You think they got civil war in Iraq now? Install a strong man and we'll really see civil war. The Iraqis will unite against the strong man, his forces and his foreign allies, and it will be a fight to the death. The Iraqis are not going to tolerate that level of US meddling and I think that the current level of violence is proof that unlike Americans, they have not been hypnotized into passive apathy by the equivalent of American Idol. It will be a new and improved bloodbath.
The CIA never seems to learn this lesson. In every case where they have overthrown a popular or elected leader to install a puppet strongman who supports whatever the agenda of the crooks currently occupying the WH, it has blown up. The consequences have always come back to haunt us, with generous interest. The CIA/WH installed the Shah, they orchestrated the assassination of Diem in order to help get the war on in Vietnam, they orchestrated the assassination of Aliende and installed Pinochet, they orchestrated the take over by strongmen in Guatemala, they propped up the thugs in Nicaragua....
These fuckers have never made a right decision when they've decided to go meddling, and everytime they have interferred in the governments of other nations it has been a disaster, leading to wars, oppression and human rights catastrophes. And each time, the world ends up despising us just a little more.
For once, just once, why can't we just decide to do the right thing? Yeah, I know... stupid question.
Sad, isn't it, that now Saddam looks like a peacemaker for his time. Iraq suffered hugely less under his entire reign than it has suffered under Chancellor Cheney. I think Saddam should get the Nobel Peace Price, which would really piss off Cheney, maybe give him a stroke.
[...] Wolf ‘n’ Ware: BLITZER: I don’t know about you, but I keep hearing suggestions from some influential elements out there that what Iraq really needs is a strongman, someone not necessarily like Saddam Hussein who was a thug and a killer, but someone, let’s say, like a Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or a Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. [...]
Strawberry @ 59:
Thanks! What a great link. I suggest everyone watch it.
Soon to be released Noriega, paroled for keeping his mouth shut, ideal reward.
Ferrofluid @ 87:
and soon to be rearested a sure way to keep his mouth shut!
Ah, traditional style American intervention. Not surprised the CIA would suggest it. They've got a lot of experience in that sort of thing--creating a functioning democracy, not so much.
This is what the neocons wanted from the very beginning. Chalabi was to be the strongman installed in Iraq.
Democracy was never talked about in the lead up to the invasion. It simply became the rationale after all other rationales got proven to be deliberate lies. Which of course is a prime reason democracy failed, because there was no preparation for it. Because there was no intention to create it. Democracy as well, is messy. There is less control over where it goes. A "benevolent" strongman was their intention all along. You'll still find neocon "thinkers" like Max Boot occasionally argue for this.
The grand neocon plan to remake the Middle East was to invade Iraq, install a friendly strongman, then invade Iran and possibly Syria probably doing the same there. Then threaten North Korea with invasion as well and watch them come to heel. Thus we would effectively control most of the ME energy resources and have powerful and growing China by the short-and-curlies.
Of course it all fell apart from the beginning, creating the very conditions that spawn dangerously increasing pro-terrorist sentiment, while simultaneously putting into stark relief to the entire world the limits of U.S. power projection and influence. The neocon plan has basically multiplied the very problem that led to 9/11, and lessened our influence with nations worldwide. The people who benefited most from our invasion of Iraq are the no-bid, cost-plus contractors like KBR/Halliburton, and mercenaries like Blackwater. And Al Qaeda itelf of course. Our invasion of Iraq was EXACTLY what they wanted, and hoped would happen after 9/11. Precisely.
Kind of funny, seeing the glorious neocon strategic thinkers and intellectuals get out-thought and out-strategized by a bunch of cave-dwelling religious zealots. Funny if it weren't so tragic.
"Forget about Democracy for the time being.."
"...A qausi-democracy with a Constitution not abandonded, but a merely suspended Constitution until this place can pull itself together..."???
If we learn from history we can see that this is a bad idea. Remember this is how Emperor Palpatine gained power!!!!
Chancellor Palpatine uses the situation of civil war to have himself granted emergency powers. Palpatine feigns reluctance in taking this decidedly undemocratic course of action, and promises to return his powers once the Clone Wars have ended. His first act is to create a Grand Army of the Republic to counter the Separatist threat.
By Episode III, The Chancellor has amassed near-absolute power in the Senate, and has remained in office long after his term expired. The Jedi Council is troubled by Palpatine's power and fears he will not relinquish it when the Clone Wars end. Palpatine raises their suspicions further by interfering in Jedi affairs; he requests that Anakin be placed on the Council as his personal representative.
Palpatine initiates Order 66, which instructs the Republic's clone troopers to kill their Jedi generals. He then announces to the Senate that the Jedi were planning to overthrow the Republic. Declaring that the Republic has failed its subjects, Palpatine announces the start of an ambitious new world order where the Republic will be replaced with a more powerful Galactic Empire, with himself as Galactic Emperor. The dramatic reforms are easily endorsed by the Senate, which remains very deferential to Palpatine's authority and charisma.
As Emperor, Palpatine abandons any semblance of democracy and eventually disbands the Senate completly.
Karen @ 51:
Thank you, Karen, for elucidating this matter. BTW, does your last sentence need a bit of editing? I think you meant to say that you feared the day when someone argued to the Roberts Court that a temporary suspension of the Constitution need not meet the strict scrutiny test, only the rational basis standard. And of course the Roberts Court with its five authoritarian justices would doubtless accommodate the powers that be no matter how outrageous the scheme they propose.
Sooooooo, we need a new murderer to run Iraq. Now that everyone has armed themselves to the teeth, I think it would be easier to catch fish with a basketball...
Like FZ said, "Verilee we must choppeth them up, and stompeth them down, or rent a Nice French Bomb and poof them out of exsistance. Leaving their real estate right where it is so we can build temples to our god...."
John Shimkus, the Congressman from IL Congressional District 19 wants a compassionate monarchy. Who is going to run for the king of Iraq? I guess Iraq doesn't deserve a democracy anymore than we do.
Alberto Gonzalez is available if Mailiki is ousted.
Login or Register to post comments.