Historic Day As Iraq Approves Cabinet!

[STING2]

Iraq was supposed to be in a middle of a Civil War by now according to critics statements back in February of this year just after the Mosque bombing. Now Iraq has completed the formation of a new government! They said the first elections would not happen, that Iraq would never be able to agree on a Constitution, that the election did not matter because they could not form a government and Iraq was in a civil war. Iraq still has a long road to go before it is a stable and fully developed country, but I look forward to more critics statements being knocked to pieces, as the Iraqi people make their way towards a stable and fully economically developed country.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/20/iraq.main/index.html

 

[Irvine511]

wonderful. any sort of progress is news in Iraq because it is so rare.

but before we get all excited, which tends to happen when we look at only the most simple, most convenient news that we most want to hear, instead of taking the time to fully evaluate the situation and assess the challenges ahead, we should pause to take note of some rather crucial issues that get so easily glossed over. an effective Iraqi government will be one where the militias and insurgent groups come under some kind of central control or even influence. so far, there's virtually nothing to be optimistic on that account:

[q]But the challenges facing the new government were obvious when al-Maliki was unable to make a final decision about the top three security posts: defense minister, who oversees the Iraqi army; interior minister, who is responsible for police; and minister for national security.
Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he would be acting interior minister for now, and he made Salam Zikam al-Zubaie, a Sunni Arab, the temporary defense minister. Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, a Kurd, was made acting minister for national security.
Al-Maliki hopes to fill all three posts with politicians who are independent and have no affiliation with any of Iraq's militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/wor...&en=8d7c3a80d941cad5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[/q]



and still, the violence rages:

[q]Occasionally the silence of Baghdad's daily slideshow of death is broken by an appalled act of recognition, as one of the men mumbles "No god but the one God" or "God is great."

So many bodies arrive at the morgue each day - 40 is not unusual on a "quiet" day - that it is impossible to let relatives in to identify them. Hence the slideshow in the yard outside. The bodies are dumped in sewage plants or irrigation canals, or just in the middle of the street. Many show signs of torture. Every morning a procession of pickup trucks, minibuses and cars line up with their coffins outside the concrete blast walls of the ministry of health to pick up their cargo. One death often courts another. Many Sunnis say the mourners are attacked en route. When they go to retrieve the body of a relative, family members often wait in the car clutching their weapons in anticipation.

The ministry is under the control of the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and a large mural of his dead ayatollah father decorates the entrance to the compound. Most of the security guards in the morgue and the ministry are affiliated to his militia, the Mahdi army, one of the militias thought to be behind the sectarian killing going on in their neighbourhoods.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1779414,00.html

[/q]



a day late, a dollar short ... it's tragic to think of what could have been accomplished if we'd had a truly international coalition similar to the one created in 1991, if we had committed enough troops to provide even a basic level of security after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, a Defense Secretary who would have had more of a response to looting and anarchy than "stuff happens."

but when wars are scheduled with elections in mind, stuff certainly does happen. and tens upon tens of thousands of innocents are buried in the sand or decapitated, floating downstream.

 

[STING2]

wonderful. any sort of progress is news in Iraq because it is so rare.

but before we get all excited, which tends to happen when we look at only the most simple, most convenient news that we most want to hear, instead of taking the time to fully evaluate the situation and assess the challenges ahead, we should pause to take note of some rather crucial issues that get so easily glossed over. an effective Iraqi government will be one where the militias and insurgent groups come under some kind of central control or even influence. so far, there's virtually nothing to be optimistic on that account:

[q]But the challenges facing the new government were obvious when al-Maliki was unable to make a final decision about the top three security posts: defense minister, who oversees the Iraqi army; interior minister, who is responsible for police; and minister for national security.
Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he would be acting interior minister for now, and he made Salam Zikam al-Zubaie, a Sunni Arab, the temporary defense minister. Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, a Kurd, was made acting minister for national security.
Al-Maliki hopes to fill all three posts with politicians who are independent and have no affiliation with any of Iraq's militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/wor...&en=8d7c3a80d941cad5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[/q]



and still, the violence rages:

[q]Occasionally the silence of Baghdad's daily slideshow of death is broken by an appalled act of recognition, as one of the men mumbles "No god but the one God" or "God is great."

So many bodies arrive at the morgue each day - 40 is not unusual on a "quiet" day - that it is impossible to let relatives in to identify them. Hence the slideshow in the yard outside. The bodies are dumped in sewage plants or irrigation canals, or just in the middle of the street. Many show signs of torture. Every morning a procession of pickup trucks, minibuses and cars line up with their coffins outside the concrete blast walls of the ministry of health to pick up their cargo. One death often courts another. Many Sunnis say the mourners are attacked en route. When they go to retrieve the body of a relative, family members often wait in the car clutching their weapons in anticipation.

The ministry is under the control of the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and a large mural of his dead ayatollah father decorates the entrance to the compound. Most of the security guards in the morgue and the ministry are affiliated to his militia, the Mahdi army, one of the militias thought to be behind the sectarian killing going on in their neighbourhoods.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1779414,00.html

[/q]



a day late, a dollar short ... it's tragic to think of what could have been accomplished if we'd had a truly international coalition similar to the one created in 1991, if we had committed enough troops to provide even a basic level of security after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, a Defense Secretary who would have had more of a response to looting and anarchy than "stuff happens."

but when wars are scheduled with elections in mind, stuff certainly does happen. and tens upon tens of thousands of innocents are buried in the sand or decapitated, floating downstream.

There are currently 7 large Sunni Insurgent groups that are in talks to end their attacks and join the government. Understanding whats going on in Iraq and assessing its progress requires that we understand that such a process in a country with Iraq's history is going to take years and involve an unavoidable level of violence. Its also a mistake to presume that a coalition like the 1991 coalition would be benefitial for Iraq. Having Saudi, Syrian, Turkish and Kuwaiti troops occupying Iraqi territory would in fact have negative consequences given the fact that they are neighbors and the political and ethnic tensions that exist. The current coalition is just as large as the 1991 in terms of the number countries providing soldiers on the ground. Japan sent a 1,000 ground troops, and South Korea has sent 3,000 ground troops. These countries did not send any troops in 1991. Germany did not send any troops in 1991 and they did not send any troops this time either. France sent 7,000 troops in 1991, but I don't think anyone would argue that having 7,000 French troops on the ground this time would make any significant difference.

Egypt could have played a good role this time around, but there was little support there, plus the only way they could get into Iraq is by the United States transporting all their equipment and troops.

There are many more hurdles in Iraq's future, but things continue to move forward. This was always going to be a difficult process, just as bringing about stability in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, and other places around the world involves years of difficulty. Afghanistan has a long way to go as well. But it is incredible how much progress has been made in both Afghanistan and Iraq in so little time. There will likely be more mistakes and setbacks in both area's, just as there has been mistakes and setbacks in every war or conflict the United States and other countries have ever been involved in. But things are on the right track and moving forward, with the Government and Military getting stronger every day.

 

[financeguy]

with the Government and Military getting stronger every day.

 

[STING2]

Documents seized from area's where Al Zarqawi operates show he feels the same way.

 

[4U2Play]

Documents seized from area's where Al Zarqawi operates show he feels the same way.

The Iraqi Army is no doubt getting stronger by the day, but the problem is that these various Sunni and Shia and Kurdish (Peshmerga) militias are also getting stronger by the day, assisted to a great degree by foreign powers (Iran, Saudi, Syria, probably Israel and Jordan).

One good bit of news is that the Iraqi government finally decided to unify Baghdad's security structure under one command:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/w...92e022d568a64e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Rather late in the game, I think, but a small step forward, nonetheless.

As far as the Iraqi government "getting stronger", that is highly debatable. Yes, they finally agreed to sit a permanent leadership, but vital ministry positions are still up for grabs.

The trend is forward, but rapidly changing conditions out on the street might overtake whatever progress is being made, especially if these Iraqi "leaders" continue to run the country with a bazaari mentality.

 

[STING2]

The Iraqi Army is no doubt getting stronger by the day, but the problem is that these various Sunni and Shia and Kurdish (Peshmerga) militias are also getting stronger by the day, assisted to a great degree by foreign powers (Iran, Saudi, Syria, probably Israel and Jordan).

One good bit of news is that the Iraqi government finally decided to unify Baghdad's security structure under one command:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/w...92e022d568a64e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Rather late in the game, I think, but a small step forward, nonetheless.

As far as the Iraqi government "getting stronger", that is highly debatable. Yes, they finally agreed to sit a permanent leadership, but vital ministry positions are still up for grabs.

The trend is forward, but rapidly changing conditions out on the street might overtake whatever progress is being made, especially if these Iraqi "leaders" continue to run the country with a bazaari mentality.

The militia certainly get new weapons, but its very limited compared to what the Iraqi military is getting. Its one thing to get a few new RPG's, its another to be getting dozens of tanks, armored personal carriers, as well as the best training in the world in using them. Any equipment for militia groups has to be smuggled in and is subject to interception. The new Iraqi military does not have this problem at all, and will receive all the equipment and training necessary to secure the country. The volume of money and equipment that can come in freely from the USA and other western countries dwarfs any sort of aid that is being secretly supplied by other countries. This won't change the situation over night, but just look what has happened in 2 years. The Iraqi military has gone from just 700 men with only rifles to a over 100,000 men with fully equipped armored and mechanized brigades. Militia and insurgent strength is roughly the same as it was two years ago. There are a few new infantry weapons here and there, as well as new IED's, but nothing that would make any militia group strong enough to take and hold territory or be able to fight and win in the open against a determined Iraqi military assualt backed up by US airpower.

The militia groups were no match for Saddam's military while he was in power, the difference between the new Iraqi military and the militia's will be even greater provided the coalition does not leave prematurely.


As for the Iraqi government, in less than a month it approved the leadership positions of 39 of 42 government ministries! The other three now have temporary leadership.

No situation on the streets of Iraq over the past 3 years has ever changed anything in terms of the countries general progress in moving forward. The chances that something could that decrease day by day as the situation slowly improves.

 

[financeguy]

Documents seized from area's where Al Zarqawi operates show he feels the same way.

 

[4U2Play]

STING2,

I appreciate and respect your sober, intelligent method of analysis and debate, thank you.

I would like to jump aboard your bandwagon on this issue. I am not one who wishes failure in Iraq in order to satisfy a frustrated hatred of Bush.

However, I find such rosy scenarios laughable when I read stories like these:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1773002,00.html


Iraqi culture is corrupt. This corruption has only grown worse over the past three years, as billions of dollars of aid and military hardware have gone missing, presumably to the benefit of the people running the show over there.

The idea that Rice has to go over there and play nice with a man like Chalabi tells me all I need to know about the character of the people running Iraq right now.

It actually makes me concious of just how fortunate the US was to be led by men of such vision and intelligence as Jefferson, Adams, Paine and Madison when they were charged with building a new government from scratch. In stark contrast, Iraq is being led by a pack of wolves with the mentality of rug merchants.

The new Iraqi Army can get all the new hardware and training possible, but it won't matter in the end if all that hardware and training are used for purposes other than what is envisioned by US military commanders. That is the problem.

Who do you suppose make up these militias that are currently hunting down and executing Sunni men at the rate of 3 per hour? It is not al-Queda members, obviously. I've read many reports from eyewitnesses who say that uniformed men, police and military, were guilty of the recent rash of kidnappings and murders.

Combine that situation in Baghdad with what's going on in Basra, where British troops now have to seriously consider the strength of Sadr's men before making any major decisions, and what you have is, not chaos or civil war, but the beginnings of warlordism.

In a vacuum, perhaps that is not such a terrible thing. But, put such a volatile state in the middle of half a dozen countries with competing interests, and what we have is a recipe for endless factionalism, until a strong group eventually emerges with the support of an outside power that can "conquer" the country and impose their own brand of governance (as with the Afghan Taleban with the support of the Pakistani ISI).

I started out optimistic about the prospects of a rich, unified, free Iraq, but the more I see how they govern themselves, now that they have this freedom, the more pessimistic I have become.

 

[STING2]

STING2,

I appreciate and respect your sober, intelligent method of analysis and debate, thank you.

I would like to jump aboard your bandwagon on this issue. I am not one who wishes failure in Iraq in order to satisfy a frustrated hatred of Bush.

However, I find such rosy scenarios laughable when I read stories like these:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1773002,00.html


Iraqi culture is corrupt. This corruption has only grown worse over the past three years, as billions of dollars of aid and military hardware have gone missing, presumably to the benefit of the people running the show over there.

The idea that Rice has to go over there and play nice with a man like Chalabi tells me all I need to know about the character of the people running Iraq right now.

It actually makes me concious of just how fortunate the US was to be led by men of such vision and intelligence as Jefferson, Adams, Paine and Madison when they were charged with building a new government from scratch. In stark contrast, Iraq is being led by a pack of wolves with the mentality of rug merchants.

The new Iraqi Army can get all the new hardware and training possible, but it won't matter in the end if all that hardware and training are used for purposes other than what is envisioned by US military commanders. That is the problem.

Who do you suppose make up these militias that are currently hunting down and executing Sunni men at the rate of 3 per hour? It is not al-Queda members, obviously. I've read many reports from eyewitnesses who say that uniformed men, police and military, were guilty of the recent rash of kidnappings and murders.

Combine that situation in Baghdad with what's going on in Basra, where British troops now have to seriously consider the strength of Sadr's men before making any major decisions, and what you have is, not chaos or civil war, but the beginnings of warlordism.

In a vacuum, perhaps that is not such a terrible thing. But, put such a volatile state in the middle of half a dozen countries with competing interests, and what we have is a recipe for endless factionalism, until a strong group eventually emerges with the support of an outside power that can "conquer" the country and impose their own brand of governance (as with the Afghan Taleban with the support of the Pakistani ISI).

I started out optimistic about the prospects of a rich, unified, free Iraq, but the more I see how they govern themselves, now that they have this freedom, the more pessimistic I have become.

I find the guardian in general to be laughable in their reporting and claims.

No one knows precisely who is behind the sectarian violence. It is known that Al Quada members do often dress up in coalition and Iraqi uniforms when performing their missions sometimes. It is also a fact that documents belonging to Al Zarqawi show specific planning for attacks on Shia civilians with the goal of creating a civil war, where none exists.

The British lost far more troops in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s than they have lost in southern Iraq over the past three years. All coalition forces have been considering the impact any armed group could have on the general environment in Iraq all the way back in 2002, months prior to the invasion.

Every nation building process has these problems that make these things difficult. The mere existence of militia groups and the fact that they make a mess of things does not change the strategic facts on the ground of what is happening.

This is a process that will take well over a decade, before things really smooth out. Its easy to point out problems and claim that the situation is hopeless and will never be solved. That is what many of the cynics did with Bosnia. They were wrong, and they will be proven wrong in Iraq as well provided the coalition does not withdraw prematurely.

 

[financeguy]

But things are on the right track and moving forward, with the Government and Military getting stronger every day.

I thought the idea was NOT to allow the government to get too powerful, surely that was the problem with the Saddam regime.

Also, I thought Repubilcans were in favour of small government.

 

[STING2]

I thought the idea was NOT to allow the government to get too powerful, surely that was the problem with the Saddam regime.

Also, I thought Repubilcans were in favour of small government.

Not in the context of building a new country. The government currently is compartively weak to most governments in stable democracies around the world. Its getting stronger though and needs to get to the level where it kind provide the stability needed for economic growth and prosperity, without the aid of coalition forces. That level of strength has nothing to do with and is not comparable to a dictator like Saddam.

Most stable democracies around the world do fit the definition of "small government". Most economic activity comes from the private sector, with the government still playing a vital and important role. This is what Iraq is attempting to move towards.

 

[4U2Play]

Also, I thought Repubilcans were in favour of small government.

hahhaa! Where have you been the last six years?

 

[Irvine511]

the most corrupt government on earth?

[q]In Corruption, New Government of Iraq Faces a Tough Old Foe
By Solomon Moore, Times Staff Writer
May 23, 2006


BAGHDAD — Each day hundreds of visitors fly into this war-ravaged capital aboard state-owned Iraqi Airways planes that Transportation Ministry officials say were purchased for $3 million apiece.

Anti-corruption officials contend that they should not have cost more than $600,000 each and wonder where the rest of the money went.

Inside the airport terminal, customs officials routinely hassle disembarking passengers for a "customs fee." The price is often negotiable.

Outside, a passenger can find a ride with one of the waiting taxis, many of them fueled with smuggled gasoline.

Beyond the airport, city streets teem with cars. A good portion of them — 17,000, according to anti-corruption officials — were stolen from the government after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Corruption is among the most critical problems facing Iraq's newly formed government, U.S. and Iraqi officials say. Moments after announcing most of his new Cabinet on Saturday, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki declared that fighting corruption would be one of his main priorities. U.S. and Iraqi officials say endemic graft and conflicts of interest await Maliki everywhere he turns.

Iraqi government documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times reveal the breadth of corruption, including epic schemes involving hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts, as well as smaller-scale cases such as the purchase of better grades by university students and the distribution of U.S.-issue pistols as party favors by a former Justice Ministry official.

"We are seeing corruption everywhere in Iraq — in every ministry, in every governorate," said Judge Radhi Radhi, head of the Commission on Public Integrity, Iraq's anti-corruption agency.

An elderly judge who was disbarred, jailed and tortured under Saddam Hussein's government, Radhi bears scars on his face from acid burns during his brutal imprisonment. His eyes, damaged by lack of light during his captivity, squint from behind Coke-bottle glasses.

"We are revealing the country's secrets," he said, perusing the thick binders of case files that line the walls of two commission offices.

Defense Ministry officials spent $1 billion on questionable arms purchases, Radhi said. The Interior Ministry has at least 1,100 ghost employees, costing it $1.3 million a month, he added.

Corruption in Iraq is not new. Yet many experts believe that the situation has worsened dramatically since the war began.

"Corruption thrives in a context of confusion and change," Transparency International, a nongovernmental anti-corruption monitoring group, said in a report last year.

"In Iraq, public institutions are even struggling to find out how many employees they have on their payrolls," the report says. "Obvious institutional safeguards are yet to be put in place, and ministries and state companies lack proper inventory systems."

Corruption helps fuel the insurgency too, Radhi said. "The terrorists help the criminals, and the criminals help the terrorists," he said. "Without corruption, we would have been able to defeat the terrorists by now."

Since 2003, hundreds of police officers and soldiers have abandoned their posts, and many took their weapons with them, U.S. officials say. Many of those weapons, along with millions of dollars' worth of arms that are unaccounted for, have probably ended up in insurgent hands, U.S. military sources and Iraqi anti-corruption officials say.

Parliament member Mishaan Jaburi was implicated this year in a case in which pipeline sentries allegedly conspired with insurgents to hijack oil convoys and spirit them out of Iraq.

There is a pervasive and growing black market in unregistered and smuggled cars, which U.S. and Iraqi military officials believe plays a part in the steady stream of car-bomb attacks.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3may23,0,2549413.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[/q]

 

[verte76]

They may never get rid of corruption in Iraqi politics. The only force against corruption in countries that have alot of it are the voters. They may vote against a party just because they equate it with corruption. Corruption is a major problem in Turkish politics. Several times Turks have voted a government out because they thought it was too corrupt and a new party has been formed that claims it's clean. But if a country's politicians are corrupt, there's no clean party, and the people just keep getting let down.

 

[nbcrusader]

Any government, any organization for that matter, where there is a large influx of money, will also find an influx of corruption.

The larger problem exists in countries where corruption is a part of the daily practice.

 

[Irvine511]

The larger problem exists in countries where corruption is a part of the daily practice.

which would be Iraq.

 

[nbcrusader]

Take a little longer view. South American countries come to mind. Certain Middle Eastern (Egypt) as well.

 

[Irvine511]

Take a little longer view. South American countries come to mind. Certain Middle Eastern (Egypt) as well.

which does nothing to change the level of corruption in Iraq.

if this is where they're starting, where are they going?

 

[verte76]

They're probably stuck with corruption. I have my doubts as whether or not it's their worst problem at this point. If security keeps on being the major problem that it is now, God knows what will happen.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Armed Groups Propel Iraq Toward Chaos

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 23 — Even in a country beset by murder and death, the 16th Brigade represented a new frontier.

The brigade, a 1,000-man force set up by Iraq's Ministry of Defense in early 2005, was charged with guarding a stretch of oil pipeline that ran through the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dawra. Heavily armed and lightly supervised, some members of the largely Sunni brigade transformed themselves into a death squad, cooperating with insurgents and executing government collaborators, Iraqi officials say.

"They were killing innocent people, anyone who was affiliated with the government," said Hassan Thuwaini, the director of the Iraqi Oil Ministry's protection force.

Forty-two members of the brigade were arrested in January, according to officials at the Ministry of the Interior and the police department in Dawra.

Since then, Iraqi officials say, individual gunmen have confessed to carrying out dozens of assassinations, including the killing of their own commander, Col. Mohsin Najdi, when he threatened to turn them in.

Some of the men assigned to guard the oil pipeline, the officials say, appear to have maintained links to the major Iraqi insurgent groups. For months, American and Iraqi officials have been trying to track down death squads singling out Sunnis that operated inside the Shiite-led Interior Ministry.

But the 16th Brigade was different. Unlike the others, the 16th Brigade was a Sunni outfit, accused of killing Shiites. And it was not, like the others, part of the Iraqi police or even the Interior Ministry. It was run by another Iraqi ministry altogether.

Such is the country that the new Iraqi leaders who took office Saturday are inheriting. The headlong, American-backed effort to arm tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and officers, coupled with a failure to curb a nearly equal number of militia gunmen, has created a galaxy of armed groups, each with its own loyalty and agenda, which are accelerating the country's slide into chaos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/w...ex=1148529600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

[/q]



it appears as if this new government, while an achievement for Muslim nation, really amounts to little more than a hill of beans when compared to the challenges the nation faces as a whole especially now as it appears as if various government ministries are gathering private armies for their own defense. most of these challenges are due to the failures of the occupation, and probably the most grevious was Rumsfeld's refusal to provide adequate security after the fall of Baghdad. insecurity leads to self-defense which leads to more insecurity.

there is some hope in the article, mostly that the Shiites have been comparatively tame in their response to sectarian violence than might have been initially expected.

still, it's hard to be hopeful when faced with such staggering cyclical violence.

what would you do? what can be done? i'm looking for positive suggestions -- we have a terrible mess on our hands, what can we do to fix it?

 

[verte76]

This is a mess.