i hate to say it

[lazysmurff]

but we told you so. from day one, we told you it would be like this and noone listened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...300853_pf.html

U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says

By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; A01



The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by a deadline of tomorrow so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.

But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how the initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.

Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.

U.S. officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. "It happened rather gradually," said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to U.S. personnel changes in Baghdad.

The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.

But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.

"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.

In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."

"Under pressure to get a constitution done, they've lowered their own ambitions in terms of getting a document that is going to be very far-reaching and democratic. We also don't have the time to go through the process we envisioned when we wrote the interim constitution -- to build a democratic culture and consensus through debate over a permanent constitution," he said.

The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.

On security, the administration originally expected the U.S.-led coalition to be welcomed with rice and rosewater, traditional Arab greetings, with only a limited reaction from loyalists of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The surprising scope of the insurgency and influx of foreign fighters has forced Washington to repeatedly lower expectations -- about the time-frame for quelling the insurgency and creating an effective and cohesive Iraqi force capable of stepping in, U.S. officials said.

Killings of members of the Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Iraq's ministry of health estimates that bombings and other attacks have killed 4,000 civilians in Baghdad since Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari's interim government took office April 28.

Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year, Army Brig. Gen. Yves Fontaine said Friday. Convoys ferrying food, fuel, water, arms and equipment from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey are attacked about 30 times a week, Fontaine said.

"There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy," Yaphe said. "This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start."

Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.

Pressed by the cost of fighting an escalating insurgency, U.S. expectations for rebuilding Iraq -- and its $20 billion investment -- have fallen the farthest, current and former officials say.

Pentagon officials originally envisioned Iraq's oil revenue paying many post-invasion expenses. But Iraq, ranked among world leaders behind Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves, is incapable of producing enough refined fuel amid a car-buying boom that has put an estimated 1 million more vehicles on the road after the invasion. Lines for subsidized cheap gas stretch for miles every day in Baghdad.

Oil production is estimated at 2.22 million barrels a day, short of the goal of 2.5 million. Iraq's pre-war high was 2.67 million barrels a day.

The United States had high hopes of quick, big-budget fixes for the electrical power system that would show Iraqis tangible benefits from the ouster of Hussein. But inadequate training for Iraqi staff, regional rivalries restricting the power flow to Baghdad, inadequate fuel for electrical generators and attacks on the infrastructure have contributed to the worst summer of electrical shortages in the capital.

Water is also a "tough, tough" situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.

"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

Knickmeyer reported from Baghdad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

other relevant links:

a closer look at the constitution:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=8509

a look at the administrations economic highjacking of iraq: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

[YogsVR4]

Someting interesting to take from all of that; its clear the insurgants are fighting off an invasion. They executing barbers. That beard cutting is clearly a sign of western imperialism and anyone who buys into such behavior musts be a collaborator and eliminated.


Edit: btw, who is the we that said that expectations should be lowered? I've done some searching and cannot find mention of it.

[lazysmurff]

i dont think anyone ever said expectations SHOULD be lowered.

i personally was refering to the "we" that told you it wasnt going to be a cakewalk, and that Iraq would never accept a secular, american style democracy.

at best, Iraq will end up a loose confederation of three states, all governed by their own brand of islamic law.

at worst, it will break into three seperate countries, all of which will constantly be at war for the oil reserves that only sit below the land of two of them.

fantastic. good to know american blood has been spilled so things could go from bad to worse.

[KustmAce]

Well that was fun. What's on the docket for tommorrow Mr. Bush?

[tenguzero]

Yeah, I read an article similar to that from Reuters this morning in my Yahoo news ticker. I've also read that apparently Senators McCain and Biden are going on the record to say that we need more troops over there (much in line with what numerous members of the military have been saying) meanwhile the administration and media has been feeding the American public all sorts of little tidbits and reports about claims of "beginning to reduce the numbers of American troops there" in order to let the Iraqi's step in. My proof that this government has been and is currently bullshitting us? THEIR OWN PEOPLE CAN'T AGREE WITH EACH OTHER!!

People need to realize one thing, and realize it quick: THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO IS PULL OUT SOON AND CROSS OUR FINGERS SHIT SORTS ITSELF OUT. Wake up people! For every Bin Laden you catch, a Zawahiri will replace him. For every Zawahiri you catch, a Zarqawi will replace him. These nutjobs know only one thing: pure and utter Jihad. Terrorism and the fanaticism that often spawns it has been around since the dawn of recorded history, the ONLY thing that has overcome it is time, education, and eventually reason. You can NOT just "wipe out" every roadside bomber and suicidal fanatic and public attacker, because as long as there is ONE left, they will manage to brainwash someone else into joining their cause. If you really want to analyze the whole "Islamic Jihadist" situation, and put it in context, think of it this way: Islam is roughly 600 years younger than Christianity -- now what was Christianity up to 600 years ago? Crusades, persecution of "heretics," brutal conquests in the name of "God," suppression of religiously "wrong" pursuits, and all sorts of bad stuff you only read about in books. Just take a look at some of the devices of torture that came out of that time for proof.

That being said, it stands to reason that perhaps Islam is going through its own dark ages, not much different from Christianity. The only major difference being that 600 years ago they didn't have remote-controlled bombs and Ak-47 assault rifles and, oh yeah, nuclear weaponry.

What we've taken on in this Middle East fiasco, is something far more convoluted than anyone could have (or should have) planned. The writing was on the wall: the Middle East has historically ALWAYS been probably THE most tumultuous place on Earth -- something far bigger than a gungho cowboy and a bunch of inept, self-serving suits could ever have HOPED to try and tackle, even with the backing of the most powerful nation in the world.

This WILL eventually end at some point, whether we pull out tomorrow, or stay for the long haul. The only question is, what will that end BE. Let's face it, the Iraqi's CANNOT govern themselves at this point in time -- it just wasn't the right moment. A true revolution has to come from within, NOT pushed along by some external force -- otherwise the people just won't coalesce. This was an artificially started revolution, undertaken at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, by the wrong people. America can't afford to make a protracted stay in the Middle East, the public just won't stand for it. We no longer live in an age of media blackouts, propaganda, and government censorship. The world is just too connected, and too educated. No more are the days when a thousand soldiers a month would die and it was just chalked up to "the cost of war." Today, ONE death is too many. And as soon as that death happens, the world knows about it. Nothing positive has EVER come of forced change -- the powers of the world are beginning to truly cooperate because of time, education, and the realization of mutual benefits for all parties involved. Countries like Iraq and North Korea have yet to realize their own place in the world community, but that cannot happen through forced action. They are still growing and evolving, as are the key parts of their society (be it North Korea's desire for strength, or the Middle East's majority religion.)

All the U.S. will succeed in doing is setting up a rickety house thatched of far too much foreign governing and alien ideas for its own good. And then once the fight to get this house built ends (either in failure or success) then comes the equally (if not more difficult) process of maintaining its structural integrity or picking up the pieces (depending on the outcome.) And frankly, the people don't agree with poor carpentry anymore, because now they can witness it first hand -- instead of through the filters imposed by governments and the media and politicians.

Perhaps time will prove me wrong (and at ths point I can only hope it does) but I can't see an real success coming out of this mess. Nothing short of an entire teardown followed by a complete rebuilding could even POSSIBLY hope to see success in the Middle East, and (contrary to what the politicians might have you believe) you can't simply teardown and rebuild an entire damn civilization. Only they can do that for themselves.

[MagicRat]

Interesting article, but none of it is a surprise.
It takes many years to build a stable democracy.
An Islamic republic, as the article says will likely occur is better than Saddam.
Look at Iran. Thier Islamic republic has stirrings of true democracy after 25 years. Likewise, Iraq will likely do the same eventually.

[KustmAce]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Likewise, Iraq will likely do the same eventually.

And "eventually" world peace may break out. But the US doesn't have the money or troops to support "eventually".

[fredjacksonsan]

Time to get out.

[Hybridology]

Duh!

[lamehonda]

I gotta go pop another Ritalin or get the cliff notes on that post.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Interesting article, but none of it is a surprise.

really? i mean, i saw it coming. as did anyone who knows anything about religious politicing. but the majority of americans were told, over and over again, that our kids were being blown to pieces for a democracy. not a theocratic confederation.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

It takes many years to build a stable democracy.

shhhh, dont let the administration hear you say that....it'll only take 3 months guys....3 months....

Originally Posted by MagicRat

An Islamic republic, as the article says will likely occur is better than Saddam.

and dog piss is better than dog shit. whats your point? sure, a maniac may be out of power, but with such a loose organization, whats to prevent another from taking over? women still wont have any freedoms. the cliche "out of the frying pan and into the fire" comes to mind...

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Look at Iran. Thier Islamic republic has stirrings of true democracy after 25 years. Likewise, Iraq will likely do the same eventually.

and china had true stirrings of democracy at tieneman square. sure did them a load of good


point of all this being, theres no WMD, no democracy, no end of terrorism...

[bayouwolf]

I say we send the christians in again...Worked in the crusades.

[Ace$nyper]

Originally Posted by bayouwolf

I say we send the christians in again...Worked in the crusades.

[TheStang00]

1. we havent lost that many soldiers, no 1800 is not that many.

2. from day 1 the administration has been saying we were gonna be there for years.

3. if you ask me, and they have done this in other regions, they should impose a rule saying that if you are seen carrying a weapon then you will be shot on sight, no questions asked.

4.

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Time to get out.

now that is the worst possible thing we could do. that would be backing down from the terrorists. the reason they are putting up such a big fight in iraq is because they know its vitally important. we cannot, and will not let that state fall into a terrorist state, that was the whole point of going in there in the first place. while sadam was not directly supporting the terrorists, he was harboring them and who knows where his WMD were going... he obviously had them at one point in time.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by TheStang00

1. we havent lost that many soldiers, no 1800 is not that many.

Yeah if a murderer came through my town and killed 1800 people, I'd shrug it off. It's not that many people could've been worse.

2. from day 1 the administration has been saying we were gonna be there for years.

Fair enough.

3. if you ask me, and they have done this in other regions, they should impose a rule saying that if you are seen carrying a weapon then you will be shot on sight, no questions asked.

I hope the NRA doesn't hear about this idea.

...while sadam was not directly supporting the terrorists, he was harboring them and who knows where his WMD were going... he obviously had them at one point in time.

Hey. Pretty much every country harbors terrorists. Yes, even the morally supperior U.S. trains and supports terrorists. Ever heard of the "School of the Americas" it's located in the U.S. and all they do is train members of foreign governments how to torture and terrorize. You don't see anybody in our government about to jump and put an end this threat to freedom and liberty that exists INSIDE of our own country do you? And what about Saddam's WMDs? For all we know he's hiding them amongst our own rediculously excessive stockpile of massively destructive weapons that we'll never use. It's the last place our government would look (since they can never look and find fault with themselves, but they're perfectly willing to waste money finding and fixing other people's problems).

Those snide remarks having been made, no the U.S. should not "pull out" immediately. Japan was occupied for nearly decade during rebuilding after WWII, and even Germany was under U.S. guidance for years longer than we have been in Iraq so far. If we would pull out, nothing that has happened so far would ammount to anything (not that ANY of it should have happened anyway, but since we already started it, and have expended such effort thus far...). People need more patience, and better planning, less rushing and less expecting that things will just magically solve themselves because Saddam is no longer in power.