Life just gets worse in Iraq

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
CTU2fan said:
Hmm, bet the 2 soldiers don't get an 8-page "RIP" thread in here...

Those 2 soldiers did not have the weight of all that loathing and hatred that Hussein did. It's precisely the cruelty that man inflicted which sets him apart from you and I, and the soldiers. For him, to us who wrote in that thread, death must be some kind of relief almost.

How in fucks name do you people not get this. Seriously. It's not rocket science.
 
also side note - as sad as it is, those soldiers made a choice to go to IRaq to fight a war that a hell of a lot of people don't agree with. Im am deeply saddened for their families having to deal with their grief, but surely people who's loved ones are in the armed forces must be prepared for their loved one to possible die in some way.

On the other hand, Saddam was murdered under a stupid law, that shows no respect for human rights. Its a big difference.
 
Angela Harlem said:


Those 2 soldiers did not have the weight of all that loathing and hatred that Hussein did. It's precisely the cruelty that man inflicted which sets him apart from you and I, and the soldiers. For him, to us who wrote in that thread, death must be some kind of relief almost.

How in fucks name do you people not get this. Seriously. It's not rocket science.

OK my comment was a bit snarky but please don't lump me in with the "you people". I know why 2 soldiers don't get the RIP thread, while Saddam does. I agree death probably is a relief to him in a way. But it's the wrong thread so I'll end the hijack...my bad.
 
Just FYI ( :) ) we have had a memorial type thread for all dead soldiers (in the past when there was a war forum) that ended up closed because one or two people suggested (and in a rude manner, well at least one that I can recall was rude) that we didn't care about dead Iraqis because there was a thread like that. Such is the way in FYM sometimes..
 
dazzlingamy said:
On the other hand, Saddam was murdered under a stupid law, that shows no respect for human rights. Its a big difference.



i am against the death penalty in principle, even for someone as awful as Saddam (and i don't think it makes sense to make him a martyr, but that's another thread).

however, i don't really care that he's dead. fuck him. i'm against his execution, but not against a world without Saddam.

but i will say that while there is an element of "choice" in a soldier enlisting in the armed services, there's not much "choice" in being sent to Iraq, and we know that many, many servicemen are deeply against the Iraq war. after all, who wants to die so that a president may save face?

i just think that making comparisons between Saddam and ordinary soldiers is going to rub people the wrong way.
 
CTU2fan said:


OK my comment was a bit snarky but please don't lump me in with the "you people". I know why 2 soldiers don't get the RIP thread, while Saddam does. I agree death probably is a relief to him in a way. But it's the wrong thread so I'll end the hijack...my bad.

No worries. I shouldn't have jumped on the cranky wagon, either, lol.

sorry about the "you people" bit!
 
Iraq: 12,000 civilians killed in '06

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
51 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq reported Tuesday that about 12,000 civilians were killed last year — the third full year since the U.S.-led invasion — with a dramatic rise in the last three months, when 5,000 died. Only about half as many Iraqi soldiers died in 2006 as American troops.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the number of Iraqi security forces killed jumps to 1,543, nearly double the American death count of 823 for the year, when the deaths of police, who conduct paramilitary operations, are added to the number of slain Iraqi soldiers.

In all, the Iraqi ministries of Health, Defense and Interior reported a total of 13,896 Iraqi civilians, police and soldiers died last year, 162 more than the tally kept by The Associated Press.

The AP count, assembled from its daily news reports, was always believed to be substantially lower than the actual number of deaths because the news cooperative does not have daily access to official accounting by the Iraqi ministries. Many deaths were thought to have gone unreported by AP.

Counts kept by other groups, including the United Nations, list far higher death tolls, which are disputed by the Iraqi government.

While the U.S. government and military provide no death totals for Iraqis, the U.N. Assistance Ministry for Iraq, UNAMI, does keep a count based on reports it gathers from the Baghdad morgue, Ministry of Health, and Medico-Legal Institute.

The figures for November and December are not yet available from the U.N., but as of the end of October the organization had reported 26,782 deaths in the first 10 months of 2006, nearly double what the Iraqi government and the AP reported for the entire year.

In its last report, the U.N. said 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October alone and that citizens were fleeing the country at a pace of 100,000 each month. The organization estimates at least 1.6 million Iraqis had left since the war began in March 2003.

Life for Iraqis, especially in Baghdad and cities and towns in the center of the country, has become increasingly untenable. Many schools failed to open in September, and professionals — especially professors, physicians, politicians and journalists — are falling to sectarian killers at a stunning pace.

At the time of the last U.N. report, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh called it "inaccurate and exaggerated" because it was not based on official government reports.

The U.N. report said Iraq's heavily armed Shiite militias were gaining strength and influence and that torture was rampant, despite the Iraqi government's vow to reduce human rights abuses.

"Hundreds of bodies continued to appear in different areas of Baghdad — handcuffed, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing," the last UNAMI report said. "Many witnesses reported that perpetrators wear militia attire and even police or army uniforms."

The two primary militias in Iraq are the military wings of the country's strongest Shiite political groups, on which Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is heavily dependent. Al-Maliki has repeatedly rejected U.S. demands that he disband the heavily armed groups, especially the Mahdi Army of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

"I think the type of violence is different in the past few months," Gianni Magazzeni, the UNAMI chief in Baghdad, said when the last report was issued in late November. "There was a great increase in sectarian violence in activities by terrorists and insurgents, but also by militias and criminal gangs."

He noted that religious clashes have been common since Sunni Arab insurgents bombed a major Shiite shrine on Feb. 22 in Samarra, north of Baghdad.

UNAMI's Human Rights Office continued to receive reports that Iraqi police and security forces have either been infiltrated by or act in collusion with militias, the report said.

It said that while sectarian violence is the main cause of the civilian killings, Iraqis also continue to be the victims of terrorist acts, roadside bombs and drive-by shootings. Others have been caught in the crossfire between rival gangs.

In its September 2006 issue, The Lancet, an independent and authoritative journal, published a study on mortality rates in Iraq.

The study estimated that 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths, including 601,027 from violence, had occurred in Iraq since the invasion of the country in March 2003.

The "confidence range" for the number of excess Iraqi deaths because of violence has been estimated at between 426,369 and 793,663, with 601,027 as the median number.

The U.S. government and Iraq as well as others, including the Iraq Body Count, an organization which has conducted other types of surveys, denied the validity of the study's findings.

The Iraqi Minister of Health, in a statement made in Vienna in early November, indicated that as many as 150,000 Iraqi civilians might have been violently killed since 2003. But there are no known statistics for the early months of the U.S.-led invasion.

After an extraordinary violence-free start to 2007, Iraqi authorities reported on Tuesday that at least 57 Iraqis were killed in sectarian bloodshed, including 45 tortured bodies found dumped in Baghdad and five in Kut to the south.

Three Iraqi civilians were killed in a roadside bombing Tuesday in eastern Baghdad, police reported. In Baqouba, gunmen killed Diyala provincial council member Ali Majeed and three members of his family. The four were gunned down while driving near the town of al-Wajihiya, Diyala provincial police said.

The military announced the death of a U.S. soldier by a roadside bomb southwest of Baghdad. The blast Monday wounded three others, including an interpreter, as they talked with residents about sectarian violence, the military said.

U.S. troops killed a suspected al-Qaida weapons dealer and two other people in Baghdad raids Tuesday.

In Fallujah, a U.S. Marine fatally wounded an Iraqi soldier in an altercation at the guard post they shared, the U.S. military said.

The confrontation took place Saturday between members of U.S. and Iraqi units assigned to combined security posts at the Fallujah Government Center. The Marine — assigned to the 1st Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 5 — has been assigned to administrative duties while the military investigates.
 
Ya we're doing a helluva a job over there...somebody tell me how these guys are better than Saddam Hussein, because I'm damned if I can see a difference/improvement. Saddam may have been a tyrant, but his replacements are apparently religious zealots as well...
 
Saddams regime averaged some 20,000 deaths a year with the additional bodycount of the manipulated sanctions which pushed some half a million through the 1990's; but the grim machinery of death was out of the way and as some say was only used on people (or families) who opposed Saddam (as if that makes it alright - or in some way morally better than the random carnage of the suicide bomber).
 
A_Wanderer said:
Saddams regime averaged some 20,000 deaths a year

did you get this number from the same people that said

"He has WMDs, it is a slam dunk case"

"Saddam and 911 are connected."

"Saddam is trying to import "yellow cake" from Niger"?
 
Irvine511 said:




some of my best friends are you people.

I'm sure some of mine are, too. It's so easy to hate someone who repulses us to the core. However, it's never really been about Hussein himself, as you know.
 
Oh she is so correct about that resistance to admitting mistakes in the American male...

So is it a male thing, strictly a Bush thing, or a combination of both?

Quindlen: Contrition as Leadership


By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek

Jan. 8, 2007 issue - When word circulated that the president would make a speech to the nation on Iraq in the new year, there was speculation about what he would say. Some suspected he would just repeat boilerplate sentiments about bringing freedom to Iraqis and making America safe from terrorism. Others thought that his remarks would address a new direction, perhaps a significant increase in the number of troops.

But no one suggested that George W. Bush would utter the words polls indicate so many Americans believe he should: "I made a mistake. I'm sorry."

It's tempting to think that the utter laughability of that notion reflects the personality of a chief executive known more for digging in his heels than holding out his hand. But it may say as much about power, the presidency and even masculinity, American style.

Historians come up pretty empty when asked to recall public admissions of error from the Oval Office. Richard Pious, the Barnard professor who wrote "The American Presidency," cites John F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs as the "rare example of a president who took full responsibility." Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose book on Lincoln, "Team of Rivals," was the one President Bush chose as his favorite this year, says that in a letter to Ulysses S. Grant after the fall of Vicksburg, Lincoln admitted that he'd doubted his general's strategy. "I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment," he wrote, "that you were right and I was wrong."

It's difficult to imagine any modern American president expressing error in such an overt fashion, perhaps because instead of a personal communication his admission would become the stuff of pundit second-guessing. And today the apology has also been devalued by a flood of cheap contrition from actors, comedians, athletes and rock stars for everything from drunken driving to bigoted outbursts. Those exercises have more to do with rehabilitation than regret, and it shows. "I'm sorry I offended other people" winds up putting the burden on the distressed rather than the distressor. The classic "mistakes were made" suggests that error is a naturally occurring event, like a sleet storm, rather than a matter of personal failing.

But in terms of presidential admissions, Deborah Tannen, the Georgetown professor who has written a raft of popular books on what we say and why, says it would be a mistake to overlook how deeply ingrained resistance to admitting mistakes is in the American male. "The public persona of authority is hypermasculine," Tannen says. "The masculine approach in our culture is never to apologize because it indicates weakness."

The sociolinguist says a true apology has four parts: admitting fault, showing remorse, acknowledging damage and indicating how it will be repaired. That scenario is perfect for confronting the debacle of Iraq—for either side. Those who believe the war was wrong would love to hear the president admit that it was based on faulty intelligence, that he regrets the invasion, that he recognizes that thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result, and that he intends to cease combat operations as soon as possible. And those who think the war was merely prosecuted incorrectly would like a statement that the threat from the insurgency was underestimated, that the president regrets that he didn't listen to those who said so from the beginning, that the conflict has been prolonged because of that, and that he will now send more troops as a response.

In their informative primer on the war, "Out of Iraq," George McGovern and William Polk begin with this stark sentence: "Events have proven that the U.S. government's decision to invade and occupy Iraq in 2003 was a calamitous mistake." Poll figures show that the majority of Americans agree. But the coauthors note, "Alien to Americans is the idea of making amends for our actions; we do not like ever to admit that we have been wrong."

But at times of schism, presidents should mirror our best impulses, not our commonplace ones. And if power means never having to say you're sorry, then the powerful miss the opportunity to truly lead. As Goodwin notes, "They fear it suggests weakness to acknowledge error when in fact it suggests strength, self-confidence and the ability to learn and grow." In Tannen's terms, language offers two paths, dominance and connection. "When you say you made a mistake, you are creating a connection," she notes.

In this case, you would also be stating the obvious. Over the nearly four years of the conflict in Iraq, more and more Americans have come to realize that significant errors were at the root of the entire enterprise. The man who must take responsibility for those errors ought to acknowledge them rather than fall back on talking points that are as tinny as an empty can. Of changing his mind, Lincoln once said something along the lines of hoping he was smarter today than he was yesterday. That's certainly true of the American people on Iraq. It would be good to learn that it's true of their leader as well.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
And today the apology has also been devalued by a flood of cheap contrition from actors, comedians, athletes and rock stars for everything from drunken driving to bigoted outbursts. Those exercises have more to do with rehabilitation than regret, and it shows. "I'm sorry I offended other people" winds up putting the burden on the distressed rather than the distressor. The classic "mistakes were made" suggests that error is a naturally occurring event, like a sleet storm, rather than a matter of personal failing.
Those are some interesting points. You really do need both the regret and the willingness to take responsibility in order for it to be a true apology.

As far as the specifically political implications though, I don't know--I do tend to think that there's such a thing as mistakes (and/or failures to do the right thing) whose consequences are of such awful magnitude as to make a literal "I'm sorry..." (as distinct from doing what you can to rectify things) seem almost obscene, at least at the time--any apology by nature underscores the vulnerability of the wronged party, pressures them to maintain faith in the person offering the apology, and that can make for a very fraught dynamic sometimes. I wouldn't want to try to quantify that but I do think it can happen. If we do wind up withdrawing altogether from Iraq in the near future, I don't envy whoever gets to make the bowing out speech.

I don't myself find women to be particularly better than men at owning up to their wrongs--less likely to be cocky maybe, a little more self-deprecating, but that's not the same thing as actually having a clear-headed view of what you've done to harm people and openly acknowledging and taking responsibility for it. Maybe it's just the people I know though, everyone's perceptions are on these sorts of things are different.
 
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 :D Maybe he'll have Laura make the bowing out speech, or Mommy.. :D
 
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
 
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
 
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/
 
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
 
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/mercurynews/news/nation/16416544.htm
 
STING2 said:
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 said:


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!
 
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 said:
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.
 
[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]
 
[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]
 
STING2 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




[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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom