Iraq: Still a bleeding sore

This CJR piece suggests that the press needs to do a better job of leading the discussion about options going foreward:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/1/editorial.asp

"The mainstream media, as they did before the war began, are facilitating this oversimplification by letting official sources on all sides of the issue dominate the daily news. As a result, the frame that most people have for thinking about what America does next in Iraq is simply to stay or go, while the question of military disengagement demands deeper thinking.
Beneath the various assertions about exit plans — from President Bush’s notion of leaving once “victory” has been achieved to Senator John McCain’s plea for more troops to Representative John Murtha’s call for a speedy pullout — there is a range of assumptions and questions that desperately need to be tested and explored, their nuances and vagaries clarified. What is the nature of Iraqis’ tribal loyalties, and will they — much as religious differences did in the former Yugoslavia — make a unified Iraq impossible? If some form of democracy is possible, what are the best ideas for how to phase it in, and what case studies elsewhere in the world — East Asia, for example, or South Africa — offer the most useful lessons? How does the presence of oil help and hinder economic development? Perhaps most importantly, what is the range of realistic outcomes in Iraq, short of the delusional notion of a Western-style, free-market democracy, that the American people should be prepared to accept?

Much of the information and expertise necessary to tease out these and other questions will not be found anywhere near the White House, or Congress for that matter. It resides in places where too few journalists are habituated to look: in the military- and security-related research institutes housed at universities, in think tanks, and within the military itself."

 

I thought you wanted us out NOW

Now that we are leaving you want us to stay ?

Dude pick a side and stick with it

 

This is a GREAT article or commentary.

The MSM never learns its lessons. They just keep taking the press releases from all sides and printing them as if they are news.

We -- and through extension our media -- should be asking the hard questions about what Iraq should and could be. Why were we so happy to let the Soviet Union break apart into separate states while we insist on a unified, democratic Iraq?

Nearly three years after Mission Accomplished, what has happened to the Goddamn oil, and how will it be managed in the future (now that Chalabi is the Oil Minister)?

 

His side is the opposite of that which Bush is on.

Now, if Bush came out in support of un-relocating the Earthquakes... Revolt would be in a moral dillllema!

 

Nice. You agree even while sneaking in a counter-punch. Good show.

 

Not all liberals are deadbeats.

 

But they're obviously better off than they were under Sadaam Hussein.

 

You know, I bet everyday Iraqis would be a lot safer if they let their new president spy on anyone he damn well pleases, toss them in prison, torture the enemies of the government, etc....

 

Do we have to wait until 3000 are killed before there's more national dialogue about this abomination of a prize war?

 

But how much more dialogue could there be, really? Bush has already admitted failure and is planning for the retreat. Didn't the Pentagon announce that troop levels would be reduced soon? It's going to be a slow and messy and disgusting surrender, sure. But that's all that's left at this point.

 

I wonder what the outcome would've been if Rumsfeld had listened to (instead of firing) General Eric Shinseki.

 

"War is a muddle; it is bound to be. There are so many incalculable accidents in the uncertain business - a turn in the weather which could not be forseen; a message gone astray; a leader struck down at acritical moment. It is very rarely that even the best laid-plans go smoothly. The lesson is to realize this, and to provide, as far as possible, against the uncertainties of war - and not be surprised when they happen." - Field Marshal Earl Wavell during a wartime broadcast

 

A Black Hawk "crash" killed 12 today. At this point it's unknown how many were service members.

5 soldiers were killed in other attacks.

We've already lost 30 troops this month.

They had their ********ing election. So we turned a corner. Can our boys come home now?

 

63 more dead U.S. soldiers this month.

When the fvck will we have "won"? Why the fvck are we STILL over there fighting, though Iraq has had it's elections and should have had a new army long, long ago?