*yawn*

Bremer is gone. The interim government is now in power. What happen in Iraq now is up to the Iraqis. America has already "won" there. As much as anti-US sentiment around the world hopes and prays for the new government to fail, I don't believe it will.

Iraq and Palestine are apples and oranges. Palestinians don't want JUST their occupied territories, and even if Israel dropped conceded to a humiliating degree, they'd still be attacked. Why? Because their new neighbors would still be religious bigots, Jew-haters, tools of mercenary terrorists.

I guess we'll see. It was said constantly that Iraq would never get to this point. That we'd eventually be turned out of the "new Vietnam", that tens of thousands of American soldiers would be killed, blah, blah, blah. Sadly in all these conveniently revised predictions of doom here and elsewhere on the Internet, I hear just a little tone of disappointment. Like terrorist bombs, they always seem to appear on and around time of historic importance to the new Iraq. The next time something good happens, there'll be a few more of these, reminding us not to forget about the impending doom.

Kind of sickens me. The occupation isn't an "occupation" any more, most Iraqis when asked prefer us there. The insurgents are foreigners and ex-Hussein flunkies that the people there hate. It isn't anything like the racist and hateful Palestinians. Get over it, the doom predictions were wrong, and these new "revised" ones will be wrong too.

Nice of you to get in some Palestinian-bashing on a thread which wasn't really about Palestine.

"the racist and hateful Palestinians."

What? All of them? All eight million?

This particualr juxtapositon I found particularly underhand:

"Sadly in all these conveniently revised predictions of doom here and elsewhere on the Internet, I hear just a little tone of disappointment. Like terrorist bombs, they always seem to appear on and around time of historic importance to the new Iraq"

If there's something you'd like to say, say it. Don't play these subliminal games.

As for predictions, I've acknowledged in the past that some of the doves predictions about the war were wrong - street to street fighting to take Baghdad for instance. But overall, the doves' "strike rate" far exceeds the hawks'.

You spend a great deal more time making assumptions about "arabs", than I do about Palestinians. You invite the Palestinian comparison yourself, implying that US "occupation" in Iraq is doomed for the same reasons that the Palestinian occupation is doomed.

Mainly what I find most annoying about your post is that it is pointless. It is like someone in the crowd at a game yelling "Yer gonna leeeeeeeewwwwsssss".

You don't make any suggestions, you ignore the successes, blow the failures out of proportion, and pretty much say that Iraq will be a failure no matter what. Is there really any way to see such a post in a positive light?

"when will Americans decide that enough is enough? "

Just about the time that Iraq is no long a threat to us. Appears to be approaching quickly, to me. Granted, I don't have any intellect or ego invested in our failure, though. I might see things differently if I did.

I'd add that this is not unlike the terrorists assertions "The American Infidels and Satan Bush will be chased from Iraq and the Middle East by the holy shoe-swinging masses!!!" We haven't been in the last 50 years, and all attempts to ramp up the fight technologically have ended in disappointment for the anti-US Arabs.

I think there is a bit of gloom to be expected. I expect a rather large war in the next few years, honestly. The nuclear issue will come to a head eventually. I think we'll "win" that one too, though the larger the scale the more painful the victory.

BakerStrret,
You make a few mistakes in your responses.

- A US appointed (not elected) administration is now running Iraq, and 140,000 US troops remain. The 'occupation' is not over in the minds of the Iraqi people. Just listening to their comments and reactions on Monday was proof of that.

- Why do you assume anti-US sentiment wants the new administration to fail? I haven't heard anyone (not even the French) suggest this?

- The roadmap for peace which the Palestinians signed up for offers them JUST their occupied terrorities. Maybe some radical Palestinians want all of Israel, but the majority just want what the US already agreed with. Of course Israel is not known for abiding with international agreements, even those the US supported.

- The insurgencies are NOT all foreigners and ex Saddam flunkies. That's the whole problem! How can you have missed this? Both Sunni and Shia sides of the population are seperately the US. This was not expected and they were totally unprepared for it.

That said, I do agree with you that the article is a bit incorrect in some important areas. It implies that America's aims are similar to Israel's. This is indeed not the case. The US has always maintained that they are there doing a job and will then hand the territory back. There are no US colonies or settlements being built. The article also implies that the US is trying to 'win' the occupation. There is no winning! Nothing to win. Their either do their job and Iraq becomes more stable in a few years or they don't. It is still an occupation, but an occupation whose goal is to de-occupy.

The article is right in pointing out that the US could have learnt from the Israeli experience. Any form of occupation generates resistance. The US should have expected this more and worked on ways to reduce this risk. They should have worked harder from day to to stop the local population believing they were occupied. Actions such as disbanding the army, taking control of all revenue, blocking international efforts for a peace keeping force, just enforced the belief that the US was in control and here to stay.

Paul.

I referred to the new government as "interim" the only time I referred to it at all...

I think you are making the article say more than it does. Summed up, it says: "America Will Lose In Iraq". That statement is already false.

No one could have been surprised by those things you mention, because all the doom-sayers were predicting it long before we invaded. Many were hoping for it, in my opinion. I think that most people feel the US needs to be "Put in its place", and hope daily that we'll be handed failure. Oracles warn of the horrific results of our actions, and the predictions just keep coming. . What would give you the idea they want the US to finish this successfully? Our failure is the "punishment" for our excess. You think these interests wouldn't delight in our hardship?

The characterization that Iraq has been an abysmal failure is obtuse. We defeated two nations in 3 years with outrageously low numbers of casualties. Both nations have interim governments and are on their way to elected governments. Perhaps things will fall apart in one or both nations, but the fact is we can't prevent them from destroying themselves. Our commitment was to give them the opportunity to decide without Hussein or the Taliban in power to deny them the right.

We'll see how it goes, but with all respect to you, I think you'll find a way to make a failure out of it no matter how resounding the success. You have to prove that we were wrong, so you need the ill fruits of the endeavor. I think that at this point the only honest thing to do is reserve judgment, especially considering the failures of all the critics so far.

P.S. Any territory offered to the Palestinians is more than they orignally had. If the Israelis were committed to "giving back", the British would be in line, and the The Turks, and the ancient Romans, and everyone else who ever governed the land. Handing the Palestinians a state is no different than giving the Israelis a state, both are unprecedented creations.

I pretty much agree with bakerstreet. It seems to be working so far, and unlike what doomsayers have said so far, USA actually handed out authority to interim government. I wonder how long before they gather up police, soldiers and etc necessary for any nation so they don't need American solders anymore.

What's wrong with hope? I don't understand those who keeps saying that something or other will fail or blow up on our collective faces. It could happen, but why EXPECT it?

it seems to me that OG is the one who's got it spot-on. you can't 'win' an occupation, which is what it still is. if it wasn't then the interim authority would have authority over american forces.

it's not even a question of whether or not you agree with the invasion. americarisked its reputation on the world stage to show that they could defeat a force that everybody knew they could pound anyway. there is simply no good exit strategy, and that is what this article is quite correctly saying.

Recently, the insurgents have mainly been attacking Iraqis, not Americans.

if it wasn't then the interim authority would have authority over american forces.

Although the troops are still under American command, the interim authority is in charge.

The simple fact of the matter is that the US cannot lose in Iraq. They have considerable superiority in numbers, equipment and training, and the political will to use fire-bombing or massive conventional weaponry on civilian targets. If Bush wins the next election (and probably if Kerry does as well) there will be no withdrawal, only an increase in the ability of the US to inflict greater damage.

The US needs Iraq to stay under their control, especially as Saudi Arabia is slowly being torn apart by unrest and the decline of the House of Saud. So even if it's only to maintain a friendly base in the Middle East, the US will do what is necessary to hold Iraq, and if that includes extermination or genocide then so be it. Already the Iraq invasions have shown that the media can be limited in what they report; I doubt there will be many who would even bother reporting civilian casualties when the need for Iraq grows ever higher.

. This is akin to saying in 1950 that the US will lose World War II based on German elections or something.  Saddam is gone. I think some anti-war people have forgotten the point of the war in the first place. Democracy in Iraq is extra credit which may or may not happen but it's not our problem.

draginol,

it has been said on many occasions by senor bush that one of the objectives of the war is to 'spread democracy in the middle east' and to 'create a free and democratic iraq'. should these things fail to occur then the war will have lost its point. that can only mean that it is your problem. if the war was only to overthrow the old regime then america should have left already.

To me it all hinges on one issue. What format will the elections take in 7 months time? Will it be one person one vote? If not the whole process is hollow, and if so what will the US do with the very real possibility that a Shiite government sympathetic to Iran will be elected. I do not believe that a US administration which has embarked on this adventure will allow this to happen. Maybe someone out there can enlighten me.

If I had to hazard a guess their system of government will be akin to the many around the world that have power-sharing results to elections. I don't think any party there would really appreciate a winner-takes-all kind of system. Districting will no doubt be adjusted to even out the power as well.

I seem to remember that when it was all being lined out there was an effort to make sure the Kurd and Sunni populations couldn't be mobbed by a Shiite majority.

johnsoup: Ousting Saddam was the PRIMARY objective in Iraq.  Establishing a liberal democracy is a secondary objective.

I am not quite sure what exactly the US "loses" if the Iraqi people can't manage to get a democracy going. Heck, it's really Europe who "loses", it's on their doorstep.