Life just gets worse in Iraq - Page 30 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-05-2007, 10:13 AM   #436
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Well of course it's a generalization, but in my experience in general women are far more self-deprecating, less arrogant, more self-aware and aware of how their actions and mistakes affect others. Of course there are always exceptions in both genders. As the article points out, it is the "masculine ideal" that seems to be pursued- you're less masculine if you admit you are wrong and if you own up to the consequences. That's bullshit to me, to me the height of masculinity is being able to do the polar opposite. That's what being a real man is to me.

I find it intriguing-of course like I said who knows in Bush's case how much of it is due to being a male and how much is just the fact that he's a messed up individual Maybe he'll have Laura make the bowing out speech, or Mommy..
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 01:17 PM   #437
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Yes, I'm so sure he'll take those views into consideration


President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:

"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. "

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin t he phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.

Sincerely, ****
Harry Reid Majority Leader
Nancy Pelosi Speaker
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-08-2007, 09:26 AM   #438
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 05:06 PM
The Independent Online

Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire
The rise in troop numbers could reduce the urgency for political effort
Published: 07 January 2007

The odds are that President George Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional US troops in Iraq. But why? Will this deliver a "win"? The answers: a combination of misunderstanding and desperation; and, probably not.

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

As for the US troops, yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would enable more roadblocks, patrols, neighbourhood clearing operations and overnight presence. But how significant will this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq - in Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops, so adding 20,000 seems too little, too late, even, for Baghdad. Further, in a "clear and hold" strategy, US troops have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be "held", or even that they are fully "cleared". The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required for a city of more than five million with no reliable police - nor have the Iraqi troops been reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Achieving enhanced protection for the population is going to be problematic at best. Even then, militia fighters in Baghdad could redeploy to other areas and continue the fight there.

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

There could be other uses for troops, for example, accelerating training for the Iraqi military and police. But even here, vetting these forces for their loyalty has proven problematic. Therefore, neither accelerated training nor more troops in the security mission can be viewed mechanistically, as though a 50 per cent increase in effort will yield a 50 per cent increased return, for other factors are at work.

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; Syria and Iran were mentioned as the next targets. Small wonder then that Syria and Iran have worked continuously to meddle in Iraq. They had reason to believe that if US action succeeded against Iraq, they would soon be targets themselves. Dealing with meddling neighbours is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts, patrols and threatening statements. Iran has thus far come out the big winner in all of this, dispensing with long-time enemy Saddam, gaining increased influence in Iraq, pursuing nuclear capabilities and striving to enlarge further its reach. The administration needs a new strategy for the region now, urgently, before Iran can gain nuclear capabilities.

America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 03:49 PM   #439
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
U.S., Iraqi forces kill 50 suspected insurgents

21 militants captured; 34 die in cargo plane crash; new Saddam video found

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, backed by American warplanes, battled suspected insurgents for hours Tuesday in central Baghdad, and 50 militant fighters were killed, the Defense Ministry said.

Elsewhere, a cargo plane carrying Turkish construction workers crashed during landing at a foggy airstrip in Balad, killing 34 people and injuring one, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said. Two people were unaccounted for.

The battle came less than 48 hours before President Bush was due to deliver a major policy speech outlining changes in U.S. strategy in Iraq. He was expected to announce an increase of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the government supported such a troop surge.

“The goal is to protect Baghdad and other areas. If this is going to be achieved by an increase in friendly coalition forces, we have no objection and we support this,” al-Dabbagh told reporters.

Battle for Haifa Street
U.S. helicopters circled above the Haifa Street area where the fighting took place, and witnesses said they had seen the aircraft firing into the combat zone. Explosions rang out across the area, just north of the heavily fortified Green Zone.

Maj. Gen. Ibrahim Shaker, a ministry spokesman, said 21 militants were captured, including seven foreign Arabs — including three Syrians — and one Sudanese.

Police said the clashes began when gunmen attacked Iraqi army checkpoints, and that Iraqi soldiers called for U.S. military help.

Al-Dabbagh said Iraqi forces had decided to wipe out “terrorist hide-outs” in the area once and for all. “God willing, Haifa Street will never threaten the Iraqi people again,” he said.

Al-Dabbagh also said followers of Saddam Hussein were to blame for the violence.

“This would never have happened were it not for some groups who provided safe havens for these terrorists. And as everyone knows, the former Baathists provided safe haven and logistics for them to destabilize Iraq,” he said.

Sunni stronghold
Haifa Street has long been Sunni insurgent territory and housed many senior Baath Party members and officials during Saddam’s rule.

The Defense Ministry issued a statement saying 11 people were arrested in the Haifa Street battle, including seven Syrians. But the U.S. military said only three people had been arrested.

A U.S. military spokesman said American and Iraqi forces launched raids to capture multiple targets, disrupt insurgent activity and restore Iraqi Security Forces control of North Haifa Street.

“This area has been subject to insurgent activity, which has repeatedly disrupted Iraqi Security Force operations in central Baghdad,” Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl said in a statement.

Troops were receiving small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenade and indirect fire attacks during the operation, the statement said.

“Anyone who conducts activities outside the rule of law will be subject to the consequences,” Rear Adm. Mark Fox, another U.S. military spokesman, said at a news conference with al-Dabbagh.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16536702/
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 03:54 PM   #440
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
NEAR BALAD RUZ - U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted a ground and air assault operation near Balad Ruz, north of Baghdad, and killed several insurgents, the U.S. military said. Several large weapon caches were also discovered.

YUSUFIYA - Iraqi troops arrested Ibrahim al-Jouburi, known as the Prince of al Qaeda in Yusufiya, and Abdullah al-Zoubai, leader of the 20th Revolutionary Brigades insurgent group in Yusufiya, 15 km (9 miles) south of Baghdad on Monday, the Defence Ministry said.

BAGHDAD - The Iraqi army released eight people who had been kidnapped by insurgents in Omar street in central Baghdad, the Defence Ministry said.


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0920830.htm
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 04:02 PM   #441
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Troop surge could affect Guard
PRESIDENT: AN INCREASE IN U.S. FORCES COULD REQUIRE REVERSAL OF PENTAGON POLICY
By Julian E. Barnes
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON - Top U.S. military officials, expecting President Bush to order an increase in the size of the force in Iraq, have concluded that such a buildup would require them to reverse Pentagon policy and send the Army's National Guard and reserve units on lengthy second tours in Iraq, defense officials said Monday.

Under Pentagon policy, Guard and reserve units have been limited to 24 months of mobilization for the Iraq war. Under that rule, most reserve units already sent to Iraq are ineligible to return.

But the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that a significant buildup would require the Pentagon to overturn the policy and send Guard and reserve units for additional yearlong tours.

Such an order probably would be controversial among state governors, who share authority over the Guard, and could heighten concerns in Congress over the war and Bush's plans for a troop increase.

``If you have to sustain a surge long term, you have to use the Guard and reserve,'' said a defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president has not unveiled his strategy shift.

Bush, set to announce his new policy Wednesday, met Monday with about a dozen Republican senators to discuss the plan. After the meeting, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said Bush appeared to be planning a buildup of 20,000 soldiers.

Any boost in combat forces would require some increase in reserve support units, such as engineering or intelligence teams. Because of training requirements, National Guard infantry forces are unlikely to be part of the initial increase. However, they would be needed later in the year to sustain a higher level of forces.

In early 2005, the National Guard and reserves made up nearly half the fighting force In Iraq. Today, of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq, one is from the National Guard, although there are other smaller reserve units also deployed there.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, a member of the Joint Chiefs, has complained publicly that the policy against involuntary second tours has forced the National Guard to cobble together units from dozens of states, rather than sending whole battalions or brigades that have worked and trained together.

``Current policies restrict our ability to remobilize reserve component units and, in my view, the current policies are more restrictive than need be under the law and hamper our ability to remobilize the best-trained, best-led and best-equipped units,'' Schoomaker said in December.

In the internal debates over whether the military should send extra troops into Iraq, the service chiefs have been convinced that sustaining an increase would require sending National Guard combat brigades for return tours as part of what the military is calling ``assured access'' to the reserves.

``If you increase'' the force in Iraq, ``part of that requirement will require assured access to the Guard,'' said a second Army official. ``If you look at the brigades that are available, you are going to have to require the assured access.''


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/16416544.htm
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 04:10 PM   #442
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
U.S., Iraqi forces kill 50 suspected insurgents

i wonder who they are killing
haditha was reported as killing insurgents

and who they are capturing
the majority of captured
are never charged and eventually released


but, they do need some good news to justify the escalation for 18-24 months
so they can try and lock down 30 year oil production agreements with some kind of quasi - Iraqi government entities
before the collapse

W did fire the Casey
(who said he did not want more troops)

and put a Naval guy in charge

why, he knows the drill - abandon ship?

he can have the ships, available for the air-lift evac
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 05:39 PM   #443
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


i wonder who they are killing
haditha was reported as killing insurgents

and who they are capturing
the majority of captured
are never charged and eventually released


but, they do need some good news to justify the escalation for 18-24 months
so they can try and lock down 30 year oil production agreements with some kind of quasi - Iraqi government entities
before the collapse

W did fire the Casey
(who said he did not want more troops)

and put a Naval guy in charge

why, he knows the drill - abandon ship?

he can have the ships, available for the air-lift evac
Contrary to your opinion, most US military personal are professionals and have done everything they can to prevent unecessary loss of civilian life in Iraq. Its incredibly ignorant to take a couple of incidents and lable everyone in that organization based on those events.

Casey was opposed to the type of troop increase being proposed which is not really a troop increase at all, simply the delays in the depart time and arrival of various brigades. He has been against any troop cut back or timetable for withdrawal that all the Democrats seem to support. His commander General John Abazaid, head of CENTCOM, is also against any troop withdrawal as are all the divisional commanders on the ground in Iraq, something Nancy Pelosi failed to mentioned in her little cherry picked letter opposing the talked about "surge" of troops.

Casey is now going to be the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. He is being replaced by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus who was a commander of the 101st Airborne Division and has served 27 months in Iraq already. In his 27 months in Iraq, Petraeus has been asked to lead a division into battle, to oversee the reconstruction and governance of Iraq's third-largest city, and to build up, from virtually nothing, Iraq's Army and police force. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus has PHD in International Relations from Princeton University. He is NOT in the NAVY!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 09:49 AM   #444
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:06 PM
all these recent articles do, indeed, support the original point of this thread -- Iraq is getting worse, and there's little the US can do to stop the descent into full-scale civil war. these middling battles in Baghdad against "insurgents" only add evidence that Iraqis are probably better off with a US withdrawal to Kurdistan and American support to whatever remains of the Iraqi army as it attempts to stave off the escalation of the current civil war. Americans are nearly beside the point as the region seems poised to enter into a broader Shia-Sunni civil war. and consider that this might be a good thing -- removing the Western element, the Us vs. Them mentality, the infidels vs. the devout, will help destroy the manichean worldview of much of the Muslim world and perhaps focus the (often well founded) sense of rage inwards instead of outwards.

perhaps prices of $100 per barrel will finally, finally spur the market to wean Western economies off oil. fighting to preserve an oil supply, rather than using crisis as an impetus to end oil dependency, is self-defeating in the long run. the oil will be gone one day, either seized by hostile regimes or simply gone, and we've got to move beyond the oil lest we get bogged down in any more Middle Eastern quagmires seeking to secure that stuff, as one poster has very frequently pointed out is the entire reason the US cares about Iraq in the first place.

if it is all about the oil, let's kick the habit.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-10-2007, 10:26 AM   #445
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 05:06 PM
"It's one thing to believe you're Napoleon. It's quite another to send more young people to die in your Waterloo."

"Does he exhibit signs of the classic layman's definition of insanity: repeatedly doing the same thing but expecting a different result?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariann...-_b_38131.html
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 01:17 PM   #446
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
all these recent articles do, indeed, support the original point of this thread -- Iraq is getting worse, and there's little the US can do to stop the descent into full-scale civil war. these middling battles in Baghdad against "insurgents" only add evidence that Iraqis are probably better off with a US withdrawal to Kurdistan and American support to whatever remains of the Iraqi army as it attempts to stave off the escalation of the current civil war. Americans are nearly beside the point as the region seems poised to enter into a broader Shia-Sunni civil war. and consider that this might be a good thing -- removing the Western element, the Us vs. Them mentality, the infidels vs. the devout, will help destroy the manichean worldview of much of the Muslim world and perhaps focus the (often well founded) sense of rage inwards instead of outwards.

perhaps prices of $100 per barrel will finally, finally spur the market to wean Western economies off oil. fighting to preserve an oil supply, rather than using crisis as an impetus to end oil dependency, is self-defeating in the long run. the oil will be gone one day, either seized by hostile regimes or simply gone, and we've got to move beyond the oil lest we get bogged down in any more Middle Eastern quagmires seeking to secure that stuff, as one poster has very frequently pointed out is the entire reason the US cares about Iraq in the first place.

if it is all about the oil, let's kick the habit.
Because of the US presense in Iraq, the following has happened:

1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces in training.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi in Shia and Kurdish area's of Iraq has improved since the removal of Saddam. Iraq, despite all the violence, still has a standard of living much higher than countries without any such violence, which is unusual historically

Despite the violence in Iraq, there is a process under way to bring stability and security to the country. It cannot be accomplished over night. Successful nationbuilding and counterinsurgency task take 10+ years to complete.

The Iraqi military needs the coalition forces to stay in place for at least another 4 years in order to help combat the insurgency and build the Iraqi military to the size and capability levels needed, so they can eventually replace coalition forces in the field. Leaving before this process is over would be absurd and would only make it more likely that Iraq would fall apart and turn into Afghanistan of the 1990s with Al Quada establishing a head quarters like they once had in Afghanistan. Bosnia level like casualties would become a real possiblity as well. Pre-mature withdrawal is not in the interest of the Iraqi's, coalition countries, or the world. It only serves the interest of terrorist and insurgents.


The world will continue to use oil from the Persian Gulf region until an energy alternative that is cheaper and more efficient than oil is found. It has to be something that Business's would find more efficient and cheaper to such a degree that they would switch over as soon as possible. Currently such an alternative does not exist, despite the fact that there is a huge payday for anyone who successfully developed such an alternative. But over the coming years and decades, as more oil is used up, it will go up in price and eventually, something, whether it is more efficient or not, will suddenly look more attractive given the price of oil, and gradually the switch will occur, just like it did a century ago when oil started to become a primary source of energy. For now though, one should expect U2's next stadium tour to be using just as much oil if not more than they did on the last tour for the tours energy needs as it travels across countries, continents and oceans.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:23 PM   #447
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:06 PM
[q]From only a few months after the start of the war in 2003, McCain has argued that the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is too light, and he and a handful of allies sought to use the post-election policy review to press their case. For three years, their entreaties had been blocked by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, but after Rumsfeld was ousted by Bush the day after the election, they found their message had a more receptive audience at the White House. "There has always been within the armed forces a group of people that believes we never had the right strategy in Iraq, and they have been suppressed," Graham said.

Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute drafted a plan with retired Army Gen. Jack Keane for sending seven more Army brigades and Marine regiments to Iraq to provide greater security. Keane and several other experts met with Bush on Dec. 11.

But from the beginning, the Joint Chiefs resisted. They had doubts that Maliki would really confront the militias controlled by fellow Shiites, notably Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr held 30 seats in Maliki's parliamentary bloc and five ministries in his cabinet.

The Joint Chiefs were also worried that sending more troops would set up the U.S. military for an even bigger failure -- with no backup options. They were concerned that the Iraqis would not deliver the troops to handle their own security efforts, as had happened in the past. They were particularly alarmed about the prospect of U.S. troops fighting in a political vacuum if the administration did not complement the military plan with political and economic changes, according to people familiar with their views.

Pentagon officials cautioned that a modest troop increase could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six to eight months to secure volatile Baghdad -- would play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs warned the White House.

Then there was the thorny problem of finding enough troops to deploy. Those who favored a "surge," such as Kagan and McCain, were looking for a sizable force that would turn the tide in Baghdad. But the Joint Chiefs made clear they could muster 20,000 at best -- not for long, and not all at once.[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:35 PM   #448
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:06 PM
[q]Most say no to Iraq buildup

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush will outline his "new way forward" in Iraq on Wednesday to a nation that overwhelmingly opposes sending more U.S. troops and is increasingly skeptical that the war can be won.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows a daunting sales job ahead for the White House, which is considering a plan to deploy up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

Those surveyed oppose the idea of increased troop levels by 61%-36%. Approval of the job Bush is doing in Iraq has sunk to 26%, a record low.

"He certainly has the wind in his face," says Michael Franc, a former congressional aide now at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "But that's not to say if he were to pursue a change in policy that proved to be successful, that those numbers wouldn't flip."

Views of the war will be difficult to change with rhetoric alone, says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. And if the public expresses strong opposition to Bush's plan, he says, Congress "may feel emboldened to exert what control they have to stop or at least make it more difficult for the president to move forward."

The survey of 1,004 adults, which has a margin of error of +/—3 percentage points, shows Americans pessimistic about the war and inclined to hold Bush responsible.

Among key findings:

•Nearly half of those surveyed say the United States can't achieve its goals in Iraq regardless of how many troops it sends. One in four say U.S. goals can be achieved only with an increase in troop numbers.

•Eight in 10 say the war has gone worse than the Bush administration expected. Of those people, 53% say Bush deserves "a great deal" of blame; 41% place a great deal of blame on Iraqi political leaders.

•By 72%-25%, Americans say Bush doesn't have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq. Congressional Democrats fare only a little better: 66%-25%.

Even so, Democrats take control of Congress amid a wave of good feeling. By 2-to-1, Americans say they want congressional Democrats, not Bush, to have more influence over the direction of the nation.

The president's overall job approval rating is 37%, up 2 percentage points from mid-December.

White House spokesman Tony Snow parried with reporters Monday over congressional and public opposition to the idea of sending more troops.

"I think the public opinion and public support is a very important part of this, and it is not static," he said. "You know, this is going to be fairly complex, and it's going to take people a little bit of time to think through, and we will spend a lot of time talking about it because it's important to do so."

While Bush has often said his war strategy won't be based on polls, three of four Americans say the government's decisions on Iraq ought to be influenced at least a moderate amount by what the public wants.

Views on increased troop levels differ sharply by party. Even among Republicans, though, 30% oppose the idea; 67% support it. Independents are against it by nearly 2-to-1. Democrats oppose it, 85%-12%.

And there is a yawning gender gap: 69% of women oppose an increase, compared with 52% of men.[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:41 PM   #449
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
U.S., Iraqi forces kill 50 suspected insurgents

21 militants captured; 34 die in cargo plane crash; new Saddam video found

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, backed by American warplanes, battled suspected insurgents for hours Tuesday in central Baghdad, and 50 militant fighters were killed, the Defense Ministry said.
[/url]


[q]Baghdad street becomes new Fallujah

January 10, 2007

US and Iraqi troops, backed by American F-15 jet fighters and Apache attack helicopters, fought suspected insurgents for at least 12 hours in one of Baghdad's most dangerous neighbourhoods in what may be a preview of expanded US operations in Iraq.
US and Iraqi officials said the assault on the Haifa Street neighbourhood rooted out an insurgent cell that controlled the area, but residents from the predominantly Sunni Muslim area and Sunni leaders said the American forces had been duped by Iraq's Shia-dominated security forces into participating in a plan to drive Sunnis from the area.

On the eve of President George W. Bush's announcement of a new war plan for Iraq, the conflicting versions underscored the difficulty US troops have in protecting civilians in this sprawling capital where Shiites and Sunnis are waging pitched battles for control of the neighbourhoods.

In the past several months, Shia militias have pushed into Sunni neighbourhoods, threatening residents with death if they don't leave. Sunni residents have responded by arming themselves and welcoming protection from Iraq's insurgents.

With Mr Bush expected to order additional troops to Baghdad in coming weeks, Sunni leaders have worried that US troops will end up helping the Shiites push them from their neighbourhoods.

US officials said Tuesday's operation wasn't aimed at any religious sect, but at insurgents who've controlled Haifa Street for months.

"It's an area that needed to be brought back under Iraqi security control," said Lieutenant Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, a US military spokesman. "There is a progression of missions that are ongoing. It's not against any particular group or militia. Most of it is driven by the Iraqi government."

Ali al-Dabaggh, a spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said the assault was part of a government effort to reassert its authority in an area where insurgents had taken refuge with remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"This area must be cleansed," he said at a joint news conference with Rear Admiral Mark Fox, a US military spokesman. "God willing, Haifa Street will not threaten Baghdad security anymore."

Mr Al-Dabaggh said former Baathists in the area "provided safe haven and logistics for" terrorist groups trying to destabilise Iraq.

Rear Admiral Fox said the US military would support the Iraqi security forces. "Anyone who conducts activities outside the rule of law will be subject to the consequences," he said.

Nearly 1000 US and Iraqi soldiers participated in Tuesday's fighting. Fifty suspected insurgents were killed and 21 were arrested, the Iraqi Ministry of Defence said. Three of those arrested were Syrian, the ministry said.

Planes and helicopters circled over the bullet-scarred buildings during the fighting, and gunfire and explosions echoed throughout central Baghdad.

Many Baghdad residents refer to Haifa Street as the capital's "Fallujah," a reference to the Sunni city in Anbar province that became a haven for al-Qa'ida in Iraq until US Marines retook it in a bloody assault in October 2005.

The street was handed over to Iraqi forces in February of last year in an effort to slowly place the capital under Iraqi control and pave the way for an American exit. But in the past few months the area became wracked by violence, and it remains one of the most heavily contested neighbourhoods in the capital's sectarian battle. Nearly every day, bodies bearing signs of torture are found discarded along Haifa Street.


Sunni residents said the fighting in their neighbourhood began Saturday with clashes between Sunnis and Shiites soon after the Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni group in Iraq, warned that militias would cleanse Baghdad of Sunnis in the coming days.

On Monday, the residents said, gunmen from the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr pushed into the area, but were beaten back by armed Sunni residents protecting their homes.

At dawn on Tuesday, Iraqi troops began to surround the street and adjacent neighbourhoods, and residents said they took up arms to defend themselves against Shia-dominated forces.

But the residents said they soon realised that the troops were backed by Americans as the Iraqi forces blew in doors and raided homes. Gunmen ringed the roofs, residents said, and men were executed in the streets, three behind a Sunni mosque.


With the Iraqi forces being backed by Americans, the residents soon gave up the fight. They laid down their arms, opened their doors and waited, said Abu Mohammed, 47, a university lecturer who lives on Haifa Street. By 6 pm the troops pulled out and the neighbourhood was calm.

"What they wanted to do was hit us back," said Mohammed, who asked not to be further identified for security reasons. "They went to the Americans and told them, `These are terrorists, and you must come with the government to detain them.'

"We are afraid that this quiet is the quiet before the storm," he said.

The Association of Muslim Scholars called the assault "a bloody sectarian massacre."

Muthana Harith al-Thari, a spokesman for the association, went on al-Jazeera television and read the names of 12 men who were killed.

"All of their guilt was that they defended their neighbourhood," he said. "The American president said in 2003, `Mission accomplished.' Now in 2007 he uses jetfighters a few meters from the Green Zone. This is defeat."

The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni political organisation in Iraq, also condemned the action. [/q]




all underscoring the terrible point: the problem with using armies to settle civil conflicts is that the army inevitably becomes infected by the same sectarian or ethnic passions that inflame the general population; it cannot be the solution.

in the eyes of the Sunni, the Americans are helping the Shia exterminate them.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-10-2007, 07:27 PM   #450
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




[q]Baghdad street becomes new Fallujah

January 10, 2007

US and Iraqi troops, backed by American F-15 jet fighters and Apache attack helicopters, fought suspected insurgents for at least 12 hours in one of Baghdad's most dangerous neighbourhoods in what may be a preview of expanded US operations in Iraq.
US and Iraqi officials said the assault on the Haifa Street neighbourhood rooted out an insurgent cell that controlled the area, but residents from the predominantly Sunni Muslim area and Sunni leaders said the American forces had been duped by Iraq's Shia-dominated security forces into participating in a plan to drive Sunnis from the area.

On the eve of President George W. Bush's announcement of a new war plan for Iraq, the conflicting versions underscored the difficulty US troops have in protecting civilians in this sprawling capital where Shiites and Sunnis are waging pitched battles for control of the neighbourhoods.

In the past several months, Shia militias have pushed into Sunni neighbourhoods, threatening residents with death if they don't leave. Sunni residents have responded by arming themselves and welcoming protection from Iraq's insurgents.

With Mr Bush expected to order additional troops to Baghdad in coming weeks, Sunni leaders have worried that US troops will end up helping the Shiites push them from their neighbourhoods.

US officials said Tuesday's operation wasn't aimed at any religious sect, but at insurgents who've controlled Haifa Street for months.

"It's an area that needed to be brought back under Iraqi security control," said Lieutenant Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, a US military spokesman. "There is a progression of missions that are ongoing. It's not against any particular group or militia. Most of it is driven by the Iraqi government."

Ali al-Dabaggh, a spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said the assault was part of a government effort to reassert its authority in an area where insurgents had taken refuge with remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"This area must be cleansed," he said at a joint news conference with Rear Admiral Mark Fox, a US military spokesman. "God willing, Haifa Street will not threaten Baghdad security anymore."

Mr Al-Dabaggh said former Baathists in the area "provided safe haven and logistics for" terrorist groups trying to destabilise Iraq.

Rear Admiral Fox said the US military would support the Iraqi security forces. "Anyone who conducts activities outside the rule of law will be subject to the consequences," he said.

Nearly 1000 US and Iraqi soldiers participated in Tuesday's fighting. Fifty suspected insurgents were killed and 21 were arrested, the Iraqi Ministry of Defence said. Three of those arrested were Syrian, the ministry said.

Planes and helicopters circled over the bullet-scarred buildings during the fighting, and gunfire and explosions echoed throughout central Baghdad.

Many Baghdad residents refer to Haifa Street as the capital's "Fallujah," a reference to the Sunni city in Anbar province that became a haven for al-Qa'ida in Iraq until US Marines retook it in a bloody assault in October 2005.

The street was handed over to Iraqi forces in February of last year in an effort to slowly place the capital under Iraqi control and pave the way for an American exit. But in the past few months the area became wracked by violence, and it remains one of the most heavily contested neighbourhoods in the capital's sectarian battle. Nearly every day, bodies bearing signs of torture are found discarded along Haifa Street.


Sunni residents said the fighting in their neighbourhood began Saturday with clashes between Sunnis and Shiites soon after the Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni group in Iraq, warned that militias would cleanse Baghdad of Sunnis in the coming days.

On Monday, the residents said, gunmen from the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr pushed into the area, but were beaten back by armed Sunni residents protecting their homes.

At dawn on Tuesday, Iraqi troops began to surround the street and adjacent neighbourhoods, and residents said they took up arms to defend themselves against Shia-dominated forces.

But the residents said they soon realised that the troops were backed by Americans as the Iraqi forces blew in doors and raided homes. Gunmen ringed the roofs, residents said, and men were executed in the streets, three behind a Sunni mosque.


With the Iraqi forces being backed by Americans, the residents soon gave up the fight. They laid down their arms, opened their doors and waited, said Abu Mohammed, 47, a university lecturer who lives on Haifa Street. By 6 pm the troops pulled out and the neighbourhood was calm.

"What they wanted to do was hit us back," said Mohammed, who asked not to be further identified for security reasons. "They went to the Americans and told them, `These are terrorists, and you must come with the government to detain them.'

"We are afraid that this quiet is the quiet before the storm," he said.

The Association of Muslim Scholars called the assault "a bloody sectarian massacre."

Muthana Harith al-Thari, a spokesman for the association, went on al-Jazeera television and read the names of 12 men who were killed.

"All of their guilt was that they defended their neighbourhood," he said. "The American president said in 2003, `Mission accomplished.' Now in 2007 he uses jetfighters a few meters from the Green Zone. This is defeat."

The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni political organisation in Iraq, also condemned the action. [/q]




all underscoring the terrible point: the problem with using armies to settle civil conflicts is that the army inevitably becomes infected by the same sectarian or ethnic passions that inflame the general population; it cannot be the solution.

in the eyes of the Sunni, the Americans are helping the Shia exterminate them.

The war in Bosnia and the fighting between the ethnic groups was far worse than anything that has been seen in Iraq, yet a strong military presense was a key factor in ending the fighting there. Afghanistan has just has many fundamental ethnic and sectarian problems as Iraq, yet no one is proposing that the coalition withdraw from Afghanistan.

The United States military has been accused of taking sides in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and virtually any other intra-state conflict it has been involved in. Its a reality of any nationbuilding/counterinsurgency task.

The "citizens" of Haifi street may claim they are just defending their homes, but what are foreign arabs doing on Haifi street then?

The lack of Sunni cooperation with the coalition and the other 80% of Iraq's population has been the biggest problem since 2003. Stopping insurgent activity so as to create a stable Iraqi government is in the best interest of all Sunni's.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com