Iraqi forces failing

[Irvine511]

[q]January 30, 2007
Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions

By MARC SANTORA
BAGHDAD, Jan. 29 —Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

They said American ground troops — and not just air support as reported Sunday — were mobilized to help the Iraqi soldiers, who appeared to have dangerously underestimated the strength of the militia, which calls itself the Soldiers of Heaven and had amassed hundreds of heavily armed fighters.

Iraqi government officials said the group apparently was preparing to storm Najaf, a holy city dear to Shiite Islam, occupy the sacred Imam Ali mosque and assassinate the religious hierarchy there, including the revered leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, during a Shiite holiday when many pilgrims visit.

“This group had more capabilities than the government,” said Abdul Hussein Abtan, the deputy governor of Najaf Province, at a news conference.

Only a month ago, in an elaborate handover ceremony, the American command transferred security authority over Najaf to the Iraqis. The Americans said at the time that they would remain available to assist the Iraqis in the event of a crisis.

The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle. But the Iraqi security forces’ miscalculations about the group’s strength and intentions raised troubling questions about their ability to recognize and deal with a threat.

The battle also brought into focus the reality that some of the power struggles in Iraq are among Shiites, not just between Shiites and Sunnis. The Soldiers of Heaven is considered to be at least partly or wholly run by Shiites.

Among the troubling questions raised is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 10 miles northeast of Najaf. After the fight was over, Iraqi officials said they discovered at least two antiaircraft weapons as well as 40 heavy machine guns.

The government knew that the Soldiers of Heaven had set up camp in the area, but officials said they thought they were there to worship together.

Mr. Abtan said the Iraqi forces later decided to move on the group because an informer said Sunday was “zero hour” and the government noticed more men streaming into the area.

“If this operation had succeeded, it would have been a chance of a lifetime for them,” he said.

[...]

Government officials were quick to point the finger at Al Qaeda, alleging that it provided financing for the group. But numerous Shiite clerics, seeking anonymity for fear of contradicting the government, said it was highly unlikely that Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, would link up with a Shiite messianic group.

Officials in the Shiite-dominated government are loath to detail internal rivalries in their community, but in the past three years there have been several clashes between rival factions, and the deaths of two senior Shiite ayatollahs have been linked to internal struggles for dominance.

The often bloody internal rivalries have been overshadowed by the more overt Sunni-Shiite war being fought daily in Baghdad and in other mixed cities.[/q]

 

[STING2]

[q]January 30, 2007
Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions

By MARC SANTORA
BAGHDAD, Jan. 29 —Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

They said American ground troops — and not just air support as reported Sunday — were mobilized to help the Iraqi soldiers, who appeared to have dangerously underestimated the strength of the militia, which calls itself the Soldiers of Heaven and had amassed hundreds of heavily armed fighters.

Iraqi government officials said the group apparently was preparing to storm Najaf, a holy city dear to Shiite Islam, occupy the sacred Imam Ali mosque and assassinate the religious hierarchy there, including the revered leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, during a Shiite holiday when many pilgrims visit.

“This group had more capabilities than the government,” said Abdul Hussein Abtan, the deputy governor of Najaf Province, at a news conference.

Only a month ago, in an elaborate handover ceremony, the American command transferred security authority over Najaf to the Iraqis. The Americans said at the time that they would remain available to assist the Iraqis in the event of a crisis.

The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle. But the Iraqi security forces’ miscalculations about the group’s strength and intentions raised troubling questions about their ability to recognize and deal with a threat.

The battle also brought into focus the reality that some of the power struggles in Iraq are among Shiites, not just between Shiites and Sunnis. The Soldiers of Heaven is considered to be at least partly or wholly run by Shiites.

Among the troubling questions raised is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 10 miles northeast of Najaf. After the fight was over, Iraqi officials said they discovered at least two antiaircraft weapons as well as 40 heavy machine guns.

The government knew that the Soldiers of Heaven had set up camp in the area, but officials said they thought they were there to worship together.

Mr. Abtan said the Iraqi forces later decided to move on the group because an informer said Sunday was “zero hour” and the government noticed more men streaming into the area.

“If this operation had succeeded, it would have been a chance of a lifetime for them,” he said.

[...]

Government officials were quick to point the finger at Al Qaeda, alleging that it provided financing for the group. But numerous Shiite clerics, seeking anonymity for fear of contradicting the government, said it was highly unlikely that Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, would link up with a Shiite messianic group.

Officials in the Shiite-dominated government are loath to detail internal rivalries in their community, but in the past three years there have been several clashes between rival factions, and the deaths of two senior Shiite ayatollahs have been linked to internal struggles for dominance.

The often bloody internal rivalries have been overshadowed by the more overt Sunni-Shiite war being fought daily in Baghdad and in other mixed cities.[/q]

How many people would have died if this had not been prevented? Something every Democratic candidate advocating withdrawal should ask themselves. What will happen without continued coalition support to continue the long process of training the Iraqi military, as well as responding to unexpected events like this?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Re: Re: Iraqi forces failing

How many people would have died if this had not been prevented? Something every Democratic candidate advocating withdrawal should ask themselves. What will happen without continued coalition support to continue the long process of training the Iraqi military, as well as responding to unexpected events like this?

That's a good point, Sting2

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Iraqi forces failing

How many people would have died if this had not been prevented? Something every Democratic candidate advocating withdrawal should ask themselves. What will happen without continued coalition support to continue the long process of training the Iraqi military, as well as responding to unexpected events like this?

what's going to happen to the Middle East when as we get more images and evidence of Americans enabling and training the Shiites to ethnically cleanse Iraq of Sunnis as there are fewer and fewer distinctions to be made between the "national" army and the Mahdi Army can be made?

watch as US soldiers cheer.

obviously, what's happening now isn't working. why continue to pursue a losing non-strategy?

how much longer are we going to claim "victory" when all we're really doing is avoiding total calamity?

how much lower can go in regards to our continuously revised "standards" of success?

 

[Irvine511]

and let's stop lying to ourselvs that this is some sort of Republican vs. Democrat issue, or Left vs. Right issue.

the country is remarkably united, as is more and more and more of Congress. and united against the Bush, and united against the idea that there's a military solution to Iraq:

[q]Senate Allies of Bush Work to Halt Iraq Vote

By CARL HULSE and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — The Bush administration’s allies in the Senate began a major effort on Tuesday to prevent a potentially embarrassing rejection of the president’s plan to push 20,000 more troops into Iraq.

With the Senate expected to reach votes on possible resolutions sometime next week, the signs of the new campaign seeped out after a weekly closed-door lunch in which Republican senators engaged in what participants described as a heated debate over how to approach the issue.

The new effort by President Bush’s allies, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is aimed at blocking two nonbinding resolutions directly critical of the White House that had appeared to be gaining broad support among Democrats and even some Republicans.

Republicans skeptical of the troop buildup said some of their colleagues had begun to suggest that opponents of the White House plan ran the risk of undermining Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new military commander in Iraq, as well as Mr. Bush.

“There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the co-author of one resolution along with Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.

As an alternative to that measure and another broadly backed by Democrats, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, along with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, are trying to enlist support for a resolution that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and describe the troop increase as a final chance for the United States to restore security in Baghdad.

The senators have been joined in their effort by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

The debate over Iraq also resounded elsewhere on Capitol Hill, as senators attending the confirmation hearing for Adm. William J. Fallon, nominated to command American forces in the Middle East, heard his blunt assessment of the path ahead. He said “time is running out” for positive action by the government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to show it can quell sectarian violence.

At another Senate hearing, the leaders of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that reported to Mr. Bush and Congress last month, disputed the White House’s contention that most of their recommendations had been incorporated into Mr. Bush’s troop increase plan.

“The diplomatic effort has not been full enough,” said Lee H. Hamilton, co-chairman of the study group with James A. Baker III. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Hamilton described the initiatives begun by the administration in the Middle East as modest and slow, and added, “We don’t have the time to wait.”

On the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats began laying the constitutional groundwork for an effort to block the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

In advance of a possible Senate vote on the resolutions, Republican senators now appear widely divided over how to proceed. In trying to head off the resolution supported by Senators Warner and Collins, allies of the White House appear to be trying to muster at least the 41 votes they would need to prevent a vote on the measure under Senate rules. Mr. McCain is sponsoring the competing resolution that would establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government. He said the proposal also could be fashioned to give Congress more oversight.[/q]

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

what i don't understand about this entire thing is that the no one raises the serious possability of partitoning iraq into separate nations. i mean shit, the borders were carved out of the ottoman empire by britan anyways. what's the difference?

another case of the west trying to force drawn up borders on a people whom obviously do not want to live inside them.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Iraqi forces failing

what's going to happen to the Middle East when as we get more images and evidence of Americans enabling and training the Shiites to ethnically cleanse Iraq of Sunnis as there are fewer and fewer distinctions to be made between the "national" army and the Mahdi Army can be made?

watch as US soldiers cheer.

obviously, what's happening now isn't working. why continue to pursue a losing non-strategy?

how much longer are we going to claim "victory" when all we're really doing is avoiding total calamity?

how much lower can go in regards to our continuously revised "standards" of success?

If it was not working, there would not be a new Iraqi government and a growing Iraqi military force. Again, you can't throw your hands up and declare failure in a task that takes 10+ years after only 3 years. Why do you ignore virtually everything that has been accomplished? The strategy that is being pursued is the strategy for nationbuilding and counterinsurgency. It has a proven track record of success, provided it is given the time and resources to work.

The standards for what is required for stability in Iraq have not changed at all. Most of the problems with security forces have been with the Police, not the Iraqi military. It will take time to sort them out. There was virtually no Iraqi military, 3 years ago, a very small one with no real capabilities 2 years ago. Today there is an Iraqi military with 138,000 troops, 1/4 of whom are compentent and well trained enough to fight along side coalition forces. Progress is being made, why do you want to abandon the effort that will allow coalition troops to withdraw from Iraq?

Withdrawal is NOT a strategy. Partition is the strategy of ethnic cleansing. You want to see a real civil war, try partitioning a country as mixed from north to south as Iraq is. Even the ISG disagree's with any proposals to partition Iraq. Pre-mature withdrawal and or partition is the way to civil war, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, and potentially a regional war.

What Iraq needs is a stable government with a capable military force to provide security for the country. Your not going to get to that point by prematurely withdrawing coalition forces. Who do you expect to suddenly replace all the tasks that 150,000 coalition troops perform every day? If you support withdrawal right now, then you have to believe that the situation on the ground in Iraq is going very well and that the Iraqi military is already where it will be four years from now.


Withdrawal now and partition of Iraq will not solve any of the problems you list. It will only make them worse and create new ones.

 

[STING2]

and let's stop lying to ourselvs that this is some sort of Republican vs. Democrat issue, or Left vs. Right issue.

the country is remarkably united, as is more and more and more of Congress. and united against the Bush, and united against the idea that there's a military solution to Iraq:

[q]Senate Allies of Bush Work to Halt Iraq Vote

By CARL HULSE and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — The Bush administration’s allies in the Senate began a major effort on Tuesday to prevent a potentially embarrassing rejection of the president’s plan to push 20,000 more troops into Iraq.

With the Senate expected to reach votes on possible resolutions sometime next week, the signs of the new campaign seeped out after a weekly closed-door lunch in which Republican senators engaged in what participants described as a heated debate over how to approach the issue.

The new effort by President Bush’s allies, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is aimed at blocking two nonbinding resolutions directly critical of the White House that had appeared to be gaining broad support among Democrats and even some Republicans.

Republicans skeptical of the troop buildup said some of their colleagues had begun to suggest that opponents of the White House plan ran the risk of undermining Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new military commander in Iraq, as well as Mr. Bush.

“There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the co-author of one resolution along with Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.

As an alternative to that measure and another broadly backed by Democrats, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, along with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, are trying to enlist support for a resolution that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and describe the troop increase as a final chance for the United States to restore security in Baghdad.

The senators have been joined in their effort by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

The debate over Iraq also resounded elsewhere on Capitol Hill, as senators attending the confirmation hearing for Adm. William J. Fallon, nominated to command American forces in the Middle East, heard his blunt assessment of the path ahead. He said “time is running out” for positive action by the government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to show it can quell sectarian violence.

At another Senate hearing, the leaders of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that reported to Mr. Bush and Congress last month, disputed the White House’s contention that most of their recommendations had been incorporated into Mr. Bush’s troop increase plan.

“The diplomatic effort has not been full enough,” said Lee H. Hamilton, co-chairman of the study group with James A. Baker III. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Hamilton described the initiatives begun by the administration in the Middle East as modest and slow, and added, “We don’t have the time to wait.”

On the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats began laying the constitutional groundwork for an effort to block the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

In advance of a possible Senate vote on the resolutions, Republican senators now appear widely divided over how to proceed. In trying to head off the resolution supported by Senators Warner and Collins, allies of the White House appear to be trying to muster at least the 41 votes they would need to prevent a vote on the measure under Senate rules. Mr. McCain is sponsoring the competing resolution that would establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government. He said the proposal also could be fashioned to give Congress more oversight.[/q]

Well if that is the case, why isn't congress cutting off funding? The resolutions are essentially irrelevant! More importantly, why would you approve appointing, Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the "surge" plan, and then attempt to pass a resolution opposing that plan? What a joke.

No one has ever claimed that there is a purely military solution to what is a nation building task. Counterinsurgency while involving the military also involves many political and economic tasks as well.

 

[Justin24]

Re: Re: Re: Iraqi forces failing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuMAooG6SM watch as US soldiers cheer.[/url]

Why should I feel sorry for the enemy who had mortors in the bag which could have killed, Iraqi soldier, American, British, or even civilians.

 

[STING2]

what i don't understand about this entire thing is that the no one raises the serious possability of partitoning iraq into separate nations. i mean shit, the borders were carved out of the ottoman empire by britan anyways. what's the difference?

another case of the west trying to force drawn up borders on a people whom obviously do not want to live inside them.

How do you partition a country that is ethnically mixed north to south? Only half the country is composed of area's where one ethnic group forms a clear majority. Its not the perfect seperation that so many people imagine it to be with Kurds(north), Sunni's(center), Shia(south). Nearly half the Shia and Kurds, plus virtually all Sunni's except radicals are opposed to any sort of partition, especially one forced on them by foreigners.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group rejected the idea of partition for many of the same reasons. Partition is the way to Civil War that so many mistakenly claim has started. If you would like to see large scale sectarian violence outside of Baghdad, as well as the intervention of Iraq's neighbors for competing reasons, partition is the way to go.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi forces failing

If it was not working, there would not be a new Iraqi government and a growing Iraqi military force. Again, you can't throw your hands up and declare failure in a task that takes 10+ years after only 3 years. Why do you ignore virtually everything that has been accomplished? The strategy that is being pursued is the strategy for nationbuilding and counterinsurgency. It has a proven track record of success, provided it is given the time and resources to work.

we occupy the country, and there is a civil war going on with genocidal militias that have thoroughly infiltrated the police force and the army, Iran operates effectively within Iraq, and sectarian tensions grow by the day and are spreading to all the countries in the Middle East. there has been savage bloodshed in Iraq, perpetrated by Iraqis on Iraqis, and nearly all the blame for this lies in the unspeakably poor planning done (or not done) by this administration. why do you dismiss the violence? why do you dismiss the startling new evidence of Shiite on Shiite violence? why do you assume that all countries are the same? why do you dismiss Middle Eastern history? why do you dismiss the enormous amount of damage this botched occupation has done to the US across the globe? why do you ignore the torture of Abu Ghraib? why do you support an administration that tortures? why do you support an administration that dismantles personal liberties? why do you support an administration that doctors intelligence in order to make a case for invasion to the public and the world, which begs the question as to how good the "real" reasons (as you wont to enumerate) ever were to begin with? why do you dismiss the fact that, 4 years later, the government barely functions, basic services barely function, unemployment is high, and lawlessness is rampant? this is a country occupied by the United States! and Americans are helping the Shia cleanse their country of Sunnis! the repurcussions of this foolish invasion are going to be felt for the next 100 years as the US does nothing to change the narrative that inspires some Muslims to terrorism -- us vs. them.

an election does not a democracy make.

such elections were always for the consumption of the American public, sadly.

 

[Irvine511]

while it's too late for me to go back and edit, i'm giving a pre-emptive "i'm not re-hashing the same arguments anymore" statement.

if anyone wants to talk about Iraqi forces and their current ability levels, cool.

if i hear anything about Resolution 1441, i'm reporting the post.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi forces failing

we occupy the country, and there is a civil war going on with genocidal militias that have thoroughly infiltrated the police force and the army, Iran operates effectively within Iraq, and sectarian tensions grow by the day and are spreading to all the countries in the Middle East. there has been savage bloodshed in Iraq, perpetrated by Iraqis on Iraqis, and nearly all the blame for this lies in the unspeakably poor planning done (or not done) by this administration. why do you dismiss the violence? why do you dismiss the startling new evidence of Shiite on Shiite violence? why do you assume that all countries are the same? why do you dismiss Middle Eastern history? why do you dismiss the enormous amount of damage this botched occupation has done to the US across the globe? why do you ignore the torture of Abu Ghraib? why do you support an administration that tortures? why do you support an administration that dismantles personal liberties? why do you support an administration that doctors intelligence in order to make a case for invasion to the public and the world, which begs the question as to how good the "real" reasons (as you wont to enumerate) ever were to begin with? why do you dismiss the fact that, 4 years later, the government barely functions, basic services barely function, unemployment is high, and lawlessness is rampant? this is a country occupied by the United States! and Americans are helping the Shia cleanse their country of Sunnis! the repurcussions of this foolish invasion are going to be felt for the next 100 years as the US does nothing to change the narrative that inspires some Muslims to terrorism -- us vs. them.

an election does not a democracy make.

such elections were always for the consumption of the American public, sadly.

The Police force has many problems in regards to infiltration by the militia's, but the Army is in a different catagory and should not be lumped in with the Police. The coalition has been far more successful in building the Iraqi military.

There is sectarian violence in Iraq, but the US military has found that 90% of it occurs in only one area, Baghdad, despite the fact that the country is ethnically mixed from north to south. Sectarian tensions in other parts of the middle east outside Iraq are not as bad as they have been in the past.

Iraq's civilians suffered far worse periods of brutal violence under Saddam. In March of 1991, 300,000 Shia were killed in Iraq, compared to 60,000 Iraqi's of all ethnicities and political motivations that have died in the past 4 years.

The coalition operates effectively in Iraq, Iran must operate in hiding if they are conducting any sort of military operation or supplying insurgent or militia forces.


"why do you dismiss the violence?"

I don't, but you always overstate, especially when you look at Iraq's own past, other Civil Wars and missions of this type.

"why do you dismiss the startling new evidence of Shiite on Shiite violence?"

Nothing startling or new here. I've never dismissed and have brought it up myself. The Shiite's are to often lumped together as one united mass acting in the interest of Iran. Thats never been the case at any point.

"why do you assume that all countries are the same?"

I don't recall mentioning that all countries are the same. I have mentioned their differences as well as their similarities.

"why do you dismiss Middle Eastern history?"

A question better asked of those who think Iraqi history started in March 2003.

"why do you dismiss the enormous amount of damage this botched occupation has done to the US across the globe?"

The desire to export goods and services to the United States has never been higher. US exports worldwide have not suffered any major drop and are starting to rise. All of the United States alliances are still intact and performing important missions for their regions. Dozens of countries around the world have contributed troops to the nationbuilding process in Iraq. The United Nations has authorized and approved just about everything thats been done in Iraq.

But, there are those opinion polls which say everyone hates the United States. But, the actions of countries and people speak louder than such polls.


"why do you ignore the torture of Abu Ghraib?"

Why do you extrapolate an unfortunate incendent into something that suggest most US military personal are engaged in such behavior? Can you find a war of this length or a prison in the United States where such unlawful actions have taken place?


"why do you support an administration that dismantles personal liberties?"

There has always been some level of restriction on ones "personal liberties". There is nothing wrong with the government adjusting that line so that it can continue to protect country from terrorism.


"why do you support an administration that doctors intelligence in order to make a case for invasion to the public and the world, which begs the question as to how good the "real" reasons (as you wont to enumerate) ever were to begin with?"

The central case for the war in Iraq was presented on September 12, 2002 to the United Nations even if this was not officially a "war speach". The congress approved a resolution 4 weeks later supporting the President in early October 2002. At that point, the President had the support he needed domestically to proceed and debate beyond that point is not really relevant.


why do you dismiss the fact that, 4 years later, the government barely functions, basic services barely function, unemployment is high, and lawlessness is rampant?

The Iraqi government has only been in office for 9 MONTHS! Lots of third world countries suffer from a lack of services, high unemployment, and lawlessness. Yet, Iraqi GDP is growing faster, people have access to more consumer goods than they did before the war, Shiites have access to humanitarian supplies and many other things denied them when Saddam was in power. Again, look at the history of the Middle East and Iraq, as well as conditions in other countries before you go around saying the situation Iraq is so terrible. Take a look at where the coalition was starting from when it started to rebuild the country after 24 years of rule by Saddam and multiple wars.


The country is occupied by the coalition under UN authority, not just the United States. The Coalition is helping to build a stable and prosperous Iraq. Those supporting a withdrawal of US forces if anything are the ones that are supporting the potential for a civil war and the cleansing of various ethnic groups, not the administration.

On 9/11, the coalition had not invaded Iraq. Once again, history does not start in March 2003. The invasion of Iraq is not the cause of middle eastern terrorism. Its about time people start to realize there was an enormous cost and risk that would only get worse if Saddam was left in power.

Its also time for anyone who supports the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces to estimate the cost to Iraq and the region of such a withdrawal. Iraq is not Somalia or located in an isolated and unengaged region of the world.

 

[Vincent Vega]

" The desire to export goods and services to the United States has never been higher. US exports worldwide have not suffered any major drop and are starting to rise. All of the United States alliances are still intact and performing important missions for their regions. Dozens of countries around the world have contributed troops to the nationbuilding process in Iraq. The United Nations has authorized and approved just about everything thats been done in Iraq.

But, there are those opinion polls which say everyone hates the United States. But, the actions of countries and people speak louder than such polls."

Yes, trade with the US has not dropped, and will not drop.

Only a few "idiots" are hating the USA.

But.. it is not true that the support of the US intervention in Iraq is supported by the masses.
In every European country, sending troops or not, the numbers of people against the war a way higher than the numper of supporters.
In major European cities like Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid or London hundreds of thousands, up to millions protested against the war, and in nearly every city there have been protest marches.
The majority of people in England, Spain, Denmark or Italy didn't support the war.

Aznar and Berlusconi lost the elections partly because of their decision to send troops and because opposition promised to withdraw their troops.

Germany and France decided not to participate in the war until there was a clear mandate by the UN to send in troops.

The credibility of the US government decreased dramatically, getting worse when we learned about what happened in Abu Ghreib and Guantanamo, or with Khaled el Masri or Murat Kurnaz.

People here clearly differentiate between what is the USA, and what is the US government. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority still likes what America stands for, apart from the current government.

 

[Irvine511]

looks like someone else thinks that 4 years has been plenty of time:

[q]GOP sets benchmark for Iraq progress
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 22 minutes ago

Several leading Senate Republicans who support President Bush's troop-boosting plan for Iraq say they will give the administration and the Iraqis about six months to show significant improvement.

"I don't think this war can be sustained for more than six months if in fact we don't see some progress," Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said Wednesday. Until this month, he was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Roberts' comments came two days after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., said the new U.S. military push was the Iraqis' "last chance."

"This needs to be successful over the next six to nine months," McConnell said in an interview Monday with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto. "And if not, we're going to have to go in a different direction."

Until now, most Republicans have been reluctant to set any timetable on the war's conduct. Their comments appear designed to hold Bush and the Iraqi government to the goal of securing the country by next fall.

In Bush's address to the nation on Jan. 10, the president said: "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November."

Roberts' and McConnell's remarks also come as Democrats press Republican senators to support resolutions critical of Bush's decision to send 21,500 more soldiers into Iraq. Two of the leading resolutions opposing the troop buildup have support from a few Republicans. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., who supports the injection of additional troops, is drafting his own resolution to set benchmarks for progress in Iraq.

Roberts, who said he planned to support McCain's measure, said he was willing to entrust Bush's plan with Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq.

"People trust this military and I think they trust Petraeus," Roberts said in an interview. "He is the right man at the right time for a very, very difficult job."

The House, which previously had planned to wait for the Senate to vote first on a resolution, may move ahead on its own anyway. A Democratic aide said the House next week will likely review a resolution stating opposition to Bush's troop buildup with the goal of starting floor debate the week of Feb. 12.

Bush on Wednesday objected to Iraq proposals from Republicans and Democrats alike and acknowledged that "there's a lot of pessimism" in Congress about his troop buildup.

In an interview with Fox's Cavuto, Bush took issue with McConnell's statement that Bush's plan needs to be successful over the next six to nine months.

"I think it's a mistake to put timetables on difficult missions because an enemy can adjust," Bush said. "On the other hand, I certainly understand the urgency in Mitch's voice. I also understand the skepticism on Capitol Hill. I mean, no doubt, there's a lot of pessimism there today."

McConnell aides on Wednesday said the senator expects to see progress in Iraq in six to nine months.

Bush also criticized a proposal by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), a Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois, to have all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq by spring 2008. "I say that it's important to succeed and that failure in Iraq will cause chaos," Bush said.

"My admonition to those who are speaking out is let us back the troops and let us hope for the success" of their mission.

Deserted by some key Republicans, Bush nevertheless said, "I don't feel abandoned. ... When times are good, there's millions of authors of the plan. When times are bad, there's one author, and that would be me."[/q]

 

[Irvine511]

" The desire to export goods and services to the United States has never been higher. US exports worldwide have not suffered any major drop and are starting to rise. All of the United States alliances are still intact and performing important missions for their regions. Dozens of countries around the world have contributed troops to the nationbuilding process in Iraq. The United Nations has authorized and approved just about everything thats been done in Iraq.

But, there are those opinion polls which say everyone hates the United States. But, the actions of countries and people speak louder than such polls."

Yes, trade with the US has not dropped, and will not drop.

Only a few "idiots" are hating the USA.

But.. it is not true that the support of the US intervention in Iraq is supported by the masses.
In every European country, sending troops or not, the numbers of people against the war a way higher than the numper of supporters.
In major European cities like Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid or London hundreds of thousands, up to millions protested against the war, and in nearly every city there have been protest marches.
The majority of people in England, Spain, Denmark or Italy didn't support the war.

Aznar and Berlusconi lost the elections partly because of their decision to send troops and because opposition promised to withdraw their troops.

Germany and France decided not to participate in the war until there was a clear mandate by the UN to send in troops.

The credibility of the US government decreased dramatically, getting worse when we learned about what happened in Abu Ghreib and Guantanamo, or with Khaled el Masri or Murat Kurnaz.

People here clearly differentiate between what is the USA, and what is the US government. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority still likes what America stands for, apart from the current government.

and let's be honest.

London and Madrid were attacked because they were the only other fully credible nations participating in the "coalition."

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, Germany got attacked, too. The bombs just didn't work.
And that is because we are present in Afghanistan and in Somalia.

A potential risk is there for every country, any European, the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan. That is what we have to deal with.
But therfore we shouldn't allow our politicians to drop any (data) privacy, or make ridicuous laws.

 

[STING2]

" The desire to export goods and services to the United States has never been higher. US exports worldwide have not suffered any major drop and are starting to rise. All of the United States alliances are still intact and performing important missions for their regions. Dozens of countries around the world have contributed troops to the nationbuilding process in Iraq. The United Nations has authorized and approved just about everything thats been done in Iraq.

But, there are those opinion polls which say everyone hates the United States. But, the actions of countries and people speak louder than such polls."

Yes, trade with the US has not dropped, and will not drop.

Only a few "idiots" are hating the USA.

But.. it is not true that the support of the US intervention in Iraq is supported by the masses.
In every European country, sending troops or not, the numbers of people against the war a way higher than the numper of supporters.
In major European cities like Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid or London hundreds of thousands, up to millions protested against the war, and in nearly every city there have been protest marches.
The majority of people in England, Spain, Denmark or Italy didn't support the war.

Aznar and Berlusconi lost the elections partly because of their decision to send troops and because opposition promised to withdraw their troops.

Germany and France decided not to participate in the war until there was a clear mandate by the UN to send in troops.

The credibility of the US government decreased dramatically, getting worse when we learned about what happened in Abu Ghreib and Guantanamo, or with Khaled el Masri or Murat Kurnaz.

People here clearly differentiate between what is the USA, and what is the US government. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority still likes what America stands for, apart from the current government.

aside from Polls, and rally's, what other evidence is there of mass opposition to the United States government? Aznar was leading in the elections until Al Quada bombed Madrid and Spanish people promptly did what Al Quada wanted them to do and threw out the Aznar government.

 

[STING2]

and let's be honest.

London and Madrid were attacked because they were the only other fully credible nations participating in the "coalition."

Wow, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea are not "credible nations"? Your essentially claiming that if the French are not apart of the coalition, then it can't be a coalition which is just absurd.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

STING, where do you live?

 

[Vincent Vega]

aside from Polls, and rally's, what other evidence is there of mass opposition to the United States government? Aznar was leading in the elections until Al Quada bombed Madrid and Spanish people promptly did what Al Quada wanted them to do and threw out the Aznar government.

Well, I live in such a region, I have much contact to people from these countries and so I know a bit of what people here are thinking.

Aznar's re-election wasn't that sure, and it got devastated when al-Quaeda bombed the train.
The reason why he lost so dramatically was because people found out that h lied to them. He said it was the ETA even though he knew it was the al-Quaeda.

Of course there is support of the US government, as well.
But opposition to the war in Iraq was far greater all the time.
Like I wrote, in European cities millions of people went on marches against the war. Every discussion was like one is in favor of the war, and ten are against it.
Bush and Rumsfeld represented the picture of the arrogant Americans that don't care what is going on in the world, and the common picture of Bush is that he don't understand what he's talking about, at all.

Sadly, some people look at Bush, and think all of the USA is like him. But most people gladly see the difference.

You remember when Rumsfeld called France and Germany the "Old Europe"?
Or Bush said "Either you are for us, or you are against us."? He put us on one level with countries like Lybia and Cuba one time.

Reasons for Schroeder's re-election were how he handled the flood in East Germany, and his opposition to the war in Iraq.

I don't really know what the polls say, but I do know what I'm experiencing.

 

[A_Wanderer]

and let's stop lying to ourselvs that this is some sort of Republican vs. Democrat issue, or Left vs. Right issue.

the country is remarkably united, as is more and more and more of Congress. and united against the Bush, and united against the idea that there's a military solution to Iraq:

When you say that there isn't a military solution to Iraq I don't think you mean that there is no army that can be defeated and it's all over - I think that you mean that because there will be a continuous baseline level of violence as long as foreign forces remain in the country that those troops should be removed - I don't disagree entirely, there will be violence as long as foreign troops are on Iraqi soil; there will never be a point where the entire country is free of sectarianism and then we leave.

Where I strongly diverge is that I don't think that the complete removal of foreign forces in the absence of power to stem Islamists; I reject the enabling of theocracy - even if it comes to power by the ballot box as it is inherently undemocratic as it places the authority and rules of God above those of man; I don't think that Bush is capable of strongly opposing religion in politics on the basis of his own convictions. Is this a slight against democracy - no, consensual government is a good thing - but if you elect a clerical class there won't be an election to remove them.

I also think people are either stupid or willfully ignorant if they think that you can walk away from Iraq and continue to fight the war on terror (a stupid title; it is a war on Islamism), there would be at least a decade or two of solid isolationism and malaise - certainly enough time for some state actor to make the challenge of Islamism much more tangiable and conventional to us. Offsetting this would be that the war for Iraq would draw the resources of regional powers diverting what may otherwise be directed outwards, high oil prices would force the hand of both industry and government to focus on alternative to fossil fuels - but such speculation is both moot and would never weigh up against the cost in lives.

At the very least shouldn't some solidarity with the more secular elements be displayed; when Bush is coopting Sistani and the Badr Brigades then your not supporting or endorsing him by standing alongside Iraqi Trade Unions which are opposed to both the war and occupation, they are the secular forces that the CPA sought to dismantle and are being fucked by the religious parties today; the fundamental principles of a free society cannot survive religious government and allies who disagree about the nature of how a civil society should function can stand united against against barbarism.

I feel that the push for full withdrawl and leaving Iraq to the devices of it's people and regional powers will allow blame to be put solely on Bush for troops lost already (and which would forever be for nothing) as well as future violence in the country - it would really be a genocide that people can feel good about, the one that the Iraqis had to have.

If you want to talk about objectives then reducing Iranian influence, training of indigenous forces, supporting and protecting secular groups (if basic serives could be delivered by said groups it could certainly help) should be pursued - regain the momentum as it were.

And your right; opposition isn't a left-right issue, since it seems to have injected so many liberals (a non-derrogatory term) with the very calculating Kissengerian realism that they otherwise claim to oppose.

 

[Irvine511]

Wow, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea are not "credible nations"? Your essentially claiming that if the French are not apart of the coalition, then it can't be a coalition which is just absurd.

the wild conclusions you draw never cease to amaze me.

never.

like, this might be the silliest post yet.

 

[Irvine511]

Brzezinski states the obvious:

[q]Mr. Chairman:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.[/q]

 

[Vincent Vega]

What really scares me is the growing influence of companies such as Blackwater and other Military Private Companies, that only can survive when there is a war to fight.

 

[STING2]

the wild conclusions you draw never cease to amaze me.

never.

like, this might be the silliest post yet.

"and let's be honest."

"London and Madrid were attacked because they were the only other fully CREDIBLE NATIONS participating in the "coalition.""


Your words, not mine! Either your ignorant on who the members of the coalition are, or you don't consider Italy, Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands to be "CREDIBLE NATIONS".

 

[Irvine511]

"and let's be honest."

"London and Madrid were attacked because they were the only other fully CREDIBLE NATIONS participating in the "coalition.""


Your words, not mine! Either your ignorant on who the members of the coalition are, or you don't consider Italy, Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands to be "CREDIBLE NATIONS".

and just what the fuck does this have to do with france?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Partition is the way to Civil War that so many mistakenly claim has started.

you're right. it's not a civil war. it's simply a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

my bad.

 

[phanan]

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Iraq at Risk of Further Strife, Intelligence Report Warns
By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 2, 2007; A01

A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.

In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.

The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.

Completion of the estimate, which projects events in Iraq over the next 18 months, comes amid intensifying debate and skepticism on Capitol Hill about the administration's war policy. In a series of contentious hearings over the past two weeks, legislators have sharply questioned Bush's new plan for the deployment of 21,500 additional U.S. troops and the administration's dependence on the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

In acid remarks yesterday to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the departing U.S. commander in Iraq, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) noted that "things have gotten markedly and progressively worse" during Casey's 2 1/2 -year tenure, "and the situation in Iraq can now best be described as dire and deteriorating. I regret that our window of opportunity to reverse momentum may be closing." Casey was appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to be Army chief of staff.

Although McCain supports the additional troop deployments, he has proposed a Senate resolution including stringent benchmarks to gauge the progress of the Iraqi government and military. McCain's resolution and other nonbinding, bipartisan proposals that would express varying degrees of disapproval of Bush's plan will be debated on the Senate floor next week.

Legislators have been equally critical of the intelligence community, repeatedly recalling that most of the key judgments in the October 2002 NIE on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were wrong. That assessment concluded that Saddam Hussein had amassed chemical and biological weapons and was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. It became the foundation of the Bush administration's case -- and congressional authorization -- for invading Iraq.

"One of the sort of deeply held rumors around here is that the intelligence community gives an administration or a president what he wants by way of intelligence," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Navy Vice Adm. John M. McConnell, Bush's nominee to be director of national intelligence, during McConnell's confirmation hearing yesterday.

Without directly accepting Feinstein's premise, McConnell replied that the intelligence community had learned "meaningful" lessons over the past several years and that "there's very intense focus on independence." McConnell and others made clear that the new NIE on Iraq had been subjected to extensive competitive analysis to test its conclusions.

One senior congressional aide said the NIE had been described to him as "unpleasant but very detailed." A source familiar with its language said it contained several dissents that are prominently displayed so that policymakers understand any disagreements within the intelligence community -- a significant change from the 2002 document, which listed most key dissents in small-type footnotes.[/q]