Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Ambassador Khalilzad - "We Have Opened Pandora's Box"

Well, this is bad news or good news. Khalilzad has dropped the Bush and Rumsfield party line. A bombshell by a Muslim on the Bush Administration; who woulda thunk it? Talk about heat seeking missile landing on the White House. But let me point out here a different strategy articulated many times by Hugh Fitzgerald at JihadWatch.org. Get the hell out of there and let them kill each other. The Kurds, I think we can ally with them and help them, but just let the "Iraqi" Sunnis and Shiites go at it. Yeah it may screw up the economy, induce a world recession, but where are we going otherwise? Islam, damned if you try to help, damned if you don't. That's Islam.

As for Khalilzad, well, I don't know why he did this? Didn't he realize those words were like a molotov cocktail thrown at an Administration that has become lost, worse than loss, obstinate that they still know their way. A ploy to get more soldiers in Iraq is implied. That will go over like a lead balloon, like the ports deal, or his 'gold card' for illegal aliens. I'm sure the left will gorge themselves - it's going to be a feast! At this rate, Bush approval ratings will reach all time lows. He's gotta get something right; my advice - do not put more soldiers in Iraq, secretly prepare to leave (if not already doing so), put the total chill on Hamas of ANY funding, drop the ports deal, defer guest worker and amnesty to the next administration and accept the House's current enforcement bill. But he is so obstinate. That was shown how he came out and threatened the veto if the ports deal was blocked by Congress, yet he really had only learned of its approval and been briefed for only a few days before he made that threat. Why do that? Why not say, I want to study this and will make a statement next week? Just an observation that made me conclude he is obstinate once he sets his mind.

I know this is the Guardian, which I despise. But the quotes are there.

US envoy to Iraq: 'We have opened the Pandora's box'

· 80% of Americans think civil war likely
· Rumsfeld accuses Tehran of fomenting conflict

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday March 8, 2006
The Guardian


The US ambassador to Baghdad conceded yesterday that the Iraq invasion had opened a Pandora's box of sectarian conflicts which could lead to a regional war and the rise of religious extremists who "would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play".
Zalmay Khalilzad broke with the Bush administration's generally upbeat orthodoxy to present a stark profile of a volatile situation in danger of sliding into chaos.

Mr Khalilzad told the Los Angeles Times Iraq had been pulled back from the brink of civil war after the February 22 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra. However, another similar incident would leave Iraq "really vulnerable" to that happening, he said. "We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" He added that the best approach was to build bridges between religious and ethnic communities.

An opinion poll published by the Washington Post and ABC News yesterday suggested that most Americans agreed with Mr Khalilzad - with 80% saying civil war in Iraq was likely, and more than a third that it was very likely. More than half thought the US should start withdrawing its troops, although only one in six wanted all troops to be withdrawn immediately.

Hours after Mr Khalilzad made his remarks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld said: "They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq and we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment." Mr Khalilzad's intervention comes in a week when the two top US generals in Iraq, John Abizaid and George Casey, are in Washington talking to the Pentagon and the White House about how many troops they will need to maintain stability in Iraq. With his remarks, Mr Khalilzad may have been lobbying Washington to keep as many American soldiers there as possible. The Bush administration is anxious to reduce the US military presence for political and military reasons.

Mr Rumsfeld said sectarian violence had been exaggerated by the media. When asked how that squared with Mr Khalilzad's view, he replied: "Well, he's there. He's an expert. And he said what he said. I happen to have not read it, but I am not going to try to disagree with it."

Nevertheless, it was clear yesterday that the Pentagon was anxious to limit the impact of Mr Khalilzad's remarks. "If you take it from a year ago to now, month to month, the attacks now are down compared to last year," said General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

Mr Khalilzad suggested the situation was so dangerous that without a substantial US presence, a civil war could suck in other Arab countries on the side of the Sunnis and Iran on the side of the Shias, creating conditions for a regional conflict and disrupting global oil supplies. "That would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play," he said.

Last night Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, stepped up pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Mr Cheney told a meeting of the Israeli lobby group, Aipac, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." Mr Rumsfeld said there were 132,000 US troops in Iraq. Plans were in place to shrink the presence to about 100,000. Downing Street said yesterday no "strict timetable" had been laid down for British troops to withdraw. A Foreign Office spokesman said: "I do not think we would be quite as gloomy as Pandora's box and civil war." But if there were further big sectarian attacks, things could get very difficult, he said.

3 comments:

Chris said...

It is crytal clear, innit? Iraq was was a comedy. Rumsfeld was supplying gas Saddam during the 80;s, didnt he know that saddam would gaz the poor Kurds? surely he knew it!

The whole iraqi operation was a mess. There was not any WMD, Bush lied and none convinced Europe about this mess. The war brought unrest and open pandora's box for A.Q. The secular Saddam was moved away so that Al Qeada govern Iraq. Women's rights are getting worse and Fundementalists are now controlling Iraq. The whole project was a failure. Now usa and bush can clean the mess with their own resources.

My view is that they could remove Saddam since the 80's but this mess benefits the interests of many enterprises and businessmen that are ripping off iraq's resources (see Hulibarton).

What about S.Arabia, Kuweitt and many other nations. Do they respect human rights? of course no, but they are good friends with Mr. Bush, if you are not a good friend with Uncle Sam then you get bombed.

John Sobieski said...

Chris, I think Bush had good intentions. Unfortunately because he got bad advice about Islam, he believed the 'democracy for Muslims' strategy was the correct overall plan for reducing jihad. It was wrong. It is a mess. Until this Administration gets some Islam advisors like Spencer, Bostom, Ye'or, etc. on board, the US will continue to waste resources (our precious soldiers and our treasury) on a lost cause.

We should isolate Islam, cutoff the 'cultural exchanges', end the jizya, and protect our country. Our tax dollars should be for America. The Muslim world can go to hell in a handbasket for all I care. Leave Islam and you can apply to immigrate. Otherwise, the door is closed.

Chris said...

well, thats not easy! How will leave 1bl muslims on the corner? What about christians live in the muslim world? did bush care about them?

Constantinople had 500,000 greeks-romans in 1955 and now they are hardly 2000. Did USA bother to send army to protect the citizens of Christianity's holiest city along with the vatican and jerusalem? No, instead it grant them to occupy north cyprus and turn christian churches on mosques. I wonder what Pat Robertson and the other right wing wacks will say about that!

It is funny, but the only country that respects the christian minority is the 'evil' Syria. How does this sound to you? The 10% are greek orthodoxs and they are ok comparing to the 100,000 living in palestine and israel or the 10 million orthodox coptes in Egypt. Surely i wont say what happened to 1,5 million armenians, to the kurds and another 3 million greeks in turkey, since turkey is our good ally and NATO member and it has the license to genocide.

So, who is going to take seriously a regime, like USA, that supports terrorists, genocides and juntas?

In addition, if you want to leave islam, why dont u change your energy equilibrium like Sweden decided to do by usinng only non-oil energy till 2010?

Bush could just kill saddam and make sure that seculars would control the country but because he is incapable he attacked only to steal iraq's oil and not to bring democracy in this country. If he wanted to get rid of the evil, usa should bomb iran by 1978, before the menace expanded.