Remember Iraq?

[solvs]

For some reason, the MSM and candidates don't seem to be mentioning it as much. But, well, it's still not great. More bad news unfortunately.

Violations of 'Islamic teachings' take deadly toll on Iraqi women (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html)

The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion -- some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.

The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other "rules" that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Sawsan says, the situation was "the best." But now, she says, it's "the worst."

And if that wasn't bad enough:

War demands strain US military readiness (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_risk_assessment_14)

Pretty self explanatory, but it gets worse:

Army Buried Study Faulting Iraq Planning (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html?ex=1360386000&en=cd27b3b4444afd98&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Nice.

[biturbomunkie]

For some reason, the MSM and candidates don't seem to be mentioning it as much.

personally, i just don't think we are gonna pull out anytime soon. with things going south in afghanistan, we need more recruits than ever. perhaps the candidates know that there's no viable exit plan in the near future.

[MacHipster]

Notice how quickly public attention shifted to the economy? The problem is that not than many citizense are personally affected by the war. I have friends that served in the military, but that was well before 9/11. I don't know a single person that's been involved. If this were like Vietnam, with a draft and higher casualties, this war would have been over as soon as it begun. Perhaps, I'm over-generalizing.

[Mike Teezie]

Notice how quickly public attention shifted to the economy? The problem is that not than many citizense are personally affected by the war. I have friends that served in the military, but that was well before 9/11. I don't know a single person that's been involved. If this were like Vietnam, with a draft and higher casualties, this war would have been over as soon as it begun. Perhaps, I'm over-generalizing.

You are definitely right.

My brother is in Iraq. Two kids I grew up with have died there. It seems like if a person doesn't have a relative or close friend there, they really don't think about Iraq. There has been absolutely zero personal sacrifice required, which I think it unfortunate.

Now that the media's focus is entirely on the economy and the upcoming elections, I'm afraid people will totally forget about the horrible things that are going on over there.

[Unspeaked]

Now that the media's focus is entirely on the economy and the upcoming elections, I'm afraid people will totally forget about the horrible things that are going on over there.

The elections were all about Iraq when they candidates were first announcing their intentions to run.

That's why McCain was dead in the water and Giuliani was the GOP frontrunner.

Then suddenly, right around the time of the first primaries, when more year-end economic data was being made public, America realizes what a mess we're in economically and that became the big issue, and will probably continue to be throughout the election.

I don't think this is ignorance on Americans parts or a media conspiracy to supplant the war with the economy, I think it's just something that came to the forefront and which - because it touches so many more people's lives directly - is a hot-button issue.

Once we have our two nominees and debates begin, I'm sure Iraq will get thrown in the mix again.

[stevegmu]

The media began to take the spotlight off Iraq when the troop surge began to show results.

[IJ Reilly]

For some reason, the MSM and candidates don't seem to be mentioning it as much. But, well, it's still not great. More bad news unfortunately.

The fact that you can still read these stories, if you choose to, suggests to me that this isn't a media issue, it's a public attention span and priority issue. With the economy headed possibly towards a recession I think it's perfectly natural for public priorities to shift away from an event on the other side of the world which has dragged on for over four years towards more immediate domestic issues. The good news I suppose is that by-in-large the American public now "gets" the war in Iraq. Few still think it was a good idea, and this sentiment is bound to feed into the national election whether it's still priority #1, or 2 or 3.

[wonga1127]

If I believed in God, I'd pray for a draft. It would end all this madness.

[Mike Teezie]

The elections were all about Iraq when they candidates were first announcing their intentions to run.

That's why McCain was dead in the water and Giuliani was the GOP frontrunner.

Then suddenly, right around the time of the first primaries, when more year-end economic data was being made public, America realizes what a mess we're in economically and that became the big issue, and will probably continue to be throughout the election.

I don't think this is ignorance on Americans parts or a media conspiracy to supplant the war with the economy, I think it's just something that came to the forefront and which - because it touches so many more people's lives directly - is a hot-button issue.

Once we have our two nominees and debates begin, I'm sure Iraq will get thrown in the mix again.

I remember, the hot button issue was troop withdrawal.

I should have clarified I don't think it's a media conspiracy or anything. It's just the nature of the beast. I'm glad the economy is getting attention.

[stevegmu]

If I believed in God, I'd pray for a draft. It would end all this madness.

C. Rangel introduced legislation proposing the reinstatement of the draft. Odd he didn't vote for it when it reached the floor.

[hulugu]

The media began to take the spotlight off Iraq when the troop surge began to show results.

This is a rather glib response. Don't you think there's any other possibility?

I'd point to the election and the economy as replacement stories, combined with little change in the direction of the Iraq War as a result. Of course, we could also cite the problems that western journalists are having in Iraq and we'd have a far more complex answer.

[stevegmu]

This is a rather glib response. Don't you think there's any other possibility?

I'd point to the election and the economy as replacement stories, combined with little change in the direction of the Iraq War as a result. Of course, we could also cite the problems that western journalists are having in Iraq and we'd have a far more complex answer.

There has been a substantial drop in violence in Iraq. If there were daily bombings with mass casualties, Iraq would be covered in greater detail.

[hulugu]

There has been a substantial drop in violence in Iraq. If there were daily bombings with mass casualties, Iraq would be covered in greater detail.

Again, I wonder if there's not more to this than "if it bleeds, it leads." Of course, I don't like simple answers.

[stevegmu]

Again, I wonder if there's not more to this than "if it bleeds, it leads." Of course, I don't like simple answers.

Here's a typical response I see all the time.


The ROLE of the MEDIA is to 'CARRY WATER' FOR THIS FASCIST UNPRINCIPLED GREEDY BUSH CABAL....
and SHOPPING is the mantra and mantle that will be HUNG around the neck of this criminal and corrupt administration's legacy....

It's all about the $$MONEY:
BIG OIL, BIG PHARMACEUTICALS, BIG LUMBER, BIG COAL, BIG HALLIBURTON, BIG PRIVATIZED BLACKWATER THUGS, BIGGEST EMBASSY IN IRAQ BEING BUILT WITH OUR STOLEN TREASURY DOLLARS and
BIG LIES TO SHILL THE WAR and to PROP UP THEIR
'LIMP' AND 'LYING' LACKEYS!!!!!

[miloblithe]

There has been a substantial drop in violence in Iraq. If there were daily bombings with mass casualties, Iraq would be covered in greater detail.

40 US troops died in Iraq in January, the highest number since September. So far, the fatality rate in February exceeds that of January (1.45/day vrs 1.29). February civilian and Iraqi security force deaths also seem to be on the rise.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I think it's hardly a leap of logic to deduce that some portion of the decline in violence is a decision by those who perpetrate it to wait out the surge.

[leekohler]

Here's a typical response I see all the time.

Oh really? And where is it that you see this "typical response all the time"?

[obeygiant]

There has been a substantial drop in violence in Iraq. If there were daily bombings with mass casualties, Iraq would be covered in greater detail.

With the exception from a single recent bombing, I actually have seen some "good" news stories from Iraq. The stories that the OP posted where the first I've heard of those things. Election news has dominated most of the headlines.

What is really wrong here is reveling in the bad news. Sometimes it seems like those who oppose the war in Iraq all to proudly decry the violence that occurs there. Any progress that is truly made there is met with the same disdain and cynicism as if it didn't happen. How could any reduction in violence be unwelcome?

[stevegmu]

40 US troops died in Iraq in January, the highest number since September. So far, the fatality rate in February exceeds that of January (1.45/day vrs 1.29). February civilian and Iraqi security force deaths also seem to be on the rise.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I think it's hardly a leap of logic to deduce that some portion of the decline in violence is a decision by those who perpetrate it to wait out the surge.

I think that increase is US casualties was due to a large operation at that time. On the same page from that link is the story from NPR- of all sources, saying there has been a big drop in violence in Baghdad since the troop surge was launched.
I'm not sure the insurgents can train and recruit as fast as they are being killed.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh really? And where is it that you see this "typical response all the time"?

If you write them yourself, you get to see them as often as you like.

[leekohler]

If you write them yourself, you get to see them as often as you like.

Ah yes, forgot about that. ;)

As for Iraq- I'm glad the violence seems to be calming down. But when you've killed so much of the population off, it's not to be unexpected. They're just animals anyway, right? :rolleyes:

[stevegmu]

If you write them yourself, you get to see them as often as you like.

I would never write such garbage. A response like that is standard fare for a certain group of people, who shall remain nameless.

Here'a another one. As we all know, there is a vast right-wing media conspiracy.

With the American military deaths at 3,882 and the Iraqi deats at 1,125,128, the people who championed the invasion and beat the drums loudest are still taking directions from the Bushies to keep silent.

[miloblithe]

I think that increase is US casualties was due to a large operation at that time. On the same page from that link is the story from NPR- of all sources, saying there has been a big drop in violence in Baghdad since the troop surge was launched.
I'm not sure the insurgents can train and recruit as fast as they are being killed.

The increase in US casualties preceded the surge (as did sectarian violence in general). Note the US casualties in October-December 2006 and Iraqi deaths starting September 2006.

Not to say that the surge itself didn't contribute to the rise in US casualties. Of course it did. It also contributed, apparently heavily, to the decrease in sectarian and other violence.

[.Andy]

I would never write such garbage. A response like that is standard fare for a certain group of people, who shall remain nameless.

Here'a another one. As we all know, there is a vast right-wing media conspiracy.
Congratulations on reaching 100 posts stevegmu!

[SMM]

The media began to take the spotlight off Iraq when the troop surge began to show results.

Except it has not shown 'results'.

[stevegmu]

The increase in US casualties preceded the surge (as did sectarian violence in general). Note the US casualties in October-December 2006 and Iraqi deaths starting September 2006.

Not to say that the surge itself didn't contribute to the rise in US casualties. Of course it did. It also contributed, apparently heavily, to the decrease in sectarian and other violence.

No, I mean last month. There was a spike in US casualties because Operation Phantom Phoenix began Jan. 1.

[obeygiant]

But when you've killed so much of the population off, it's not to be unexpected. They're just animals anyway, right? :rolleyes:

You really think the soldiers there are just shooting into crowds indiscriminately? :confused: Like the common grunt is just goes around slashing throats and shooting his machine. I think thats a distortion.

[SMM]

There has been a substantial drop in violence in Iraq. If there were daily bombings with mass casualties, Iraq would be covered in greater detail.

Not really true.

[.Andy]

You really think the soldiers there are just shooting into crowds indiscriminately? :confused: Like the common grunt is just goes around slashing throats and shooting his machine. I think thats a distortion.
Where did you get this from? I can't see where Lee implied anything of the sort.

[stevegmu]

Except it has not shown 'results'.

Interesting, considering murders in Baghdad are down 70% and attacks are down 80%.
Somehow, I think if the troop surge had not shown positive results, the media would be all over the story.

[leekohler]

You really think the soldiers there are just shooting into crowds indiscriminately? :confused: Like the common grunt is just goes around slashing throats and shooting his machine. I think thats a distortion.

Did I say that? No. However, we've been there for several years and it's been a violent several years. Tons of Iraqis have been killed- far more than the casualties we've received.

BTW- many of my relatives and friends are some of the "common grunts" as you say. They've told me some harrowing stories. It's not as if they're over there for a vacation. And if you don't think there have been some pretty big slaughters, you are wrong.

[miloblithe]

Interesting, considering murders in Baghdad are down 70% and attacks are down 80%.
Somehow, I think if the troop surge had not shown positive results, the media would be all over the story.

Well, this story shows one apparent weakness of the "surge."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7238437.stm

Of course, everyone who's not entirely dim understood this was an escalation, not a "temporary surge."

[IJ Reilly]

I would never write such garbage. A response like that is standard fare for a certain group of people, who shall remain nameless.

If you'd prefer to discuss this issue with people who aren't "nameless" and can respond, then this a good place to do it. Otherwise, you're just shadowboxing.

[stevegmu]

If you'd prefer to discuss this issue with people who aren't "nameless" and can respond, then this a good place to do it. Otherwise, you're just shadowboxing.

I'm pretty sure most on here would agree with the quotes I provided, and defend them as fact.

[stevegmu]

Well, this story shows one apparent weakness of the "surge."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7238437.stm

Of course, everyone who's not entirely dim understood this was an escalation, not a "temporary surge."

Can you provide a quote?
The only apparent 'weakness' I saw was that the surge isn't permanent.

[miloblithe]

I'm pretty sure most on here would agree with the quotes I provided, and defend them as fact.


Steve, I hope you continue to post here and provide valuable insight. However, please note that forum rules state that assertions, when challenged, should be backed by links (and really links should be provided as back up for statements other than opinion). I'm also interested in a source for the stats you cite in the reduction of Baghdad violence. I'd like to see what the baseline is.

[leekohler]

I'm pretty sure most on here would agree with the quotes I provided, and defend them as fact.

Really? Then you don't know us very well.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm pretty sure most on here would agree with the quotes I provided, and defend them as fact.

Really. You've been around not even two weeks, and already you know what "most here" would agree with.

[.Andy]

I'm pretty sure most on here would agree with the quotes I provided, and defend them as fact.
Please don't do this. The hyperbole is wearing thin already.

[hulugu]

Well, this story shows one apparent weakness of the "surge."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7238437.stm

Of course, everyone who's not entirely dim understood this was an escalation, not a "temporary surge."

This is also too pat an answer. While the comparison to Vietnam can be useful, the inference that a temporary pause in the draw-down of troops is actually cover for an escalation ignores that with temporary gains comes the security in the country that has been desperately needed since the CPA was established. We have a moment where the war may begin to end, the Iraqis are tired to violence, the Sunni insurgencies have turned on foreign fighters, the Shi'ites appear to be willing to deal and the violence is waning slightly.

Will this trend continue? It's very difficult to say, but with this many variables in play, I honestly think the best thing to do is sit tight and try to refuse the desire to use troop levels as a political lever.

[stevegmu]

Steve, I hope you continue to post here and provide valuable insight. However, please note that forum rules state that assertions, when challenged, should be backed by links (and really links should be provided as back up for statements other than opinion). I'm also interested in a source for the stats you cite in the reduction of Baghdad violence. I'd like to see what the baseline is.

I figured any source I would provide would be immediately discounted, as it may be a government source, or from,Fox News, Heritage Foundation, The Wall Street Journal, Townhall, GlobalSecurity, etc. We all know those can't be trusted.

[miloblithe]

Can you provide a quote?
The only apparent 'weakness' I saw was that the surge isn't permanent.

If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

[miloblithe]

I figured any source I would provide would be immediately discounted, as it may be a government source, or from,Fox News, Heritage Foundation, The Wall Street Journal, Townhall, GlobalSecurity, etc. We all know those can't be trusted.

I see no problems with any of those sources, although I don't know much about Townhall. GlobalSecurity is an excellent source.

[hulugu]

If you'd prefer to discuss this issue with people who aren't "nameless" and can respond, then this a good place to do it. Otherwise, you're just shadowboxing.

I'm pretty sure most on here would agree with the quotes I provided, and defend them as fact.

By refusing to provide specific and attributed quotes, IJ is correct, you're shadowboxing. I think we've got something to talk about, by so far you're just shuck and dive.

Shuck and dive.

I figured any source I would provide would be immediately discounted, as it may be a government source, or from,Fox News, Heritage Foundation, The Wall Street Journal, Townhall, GlobalSecurity, etc. We all know those can't be trusted.


Shuck and dive.

[stevegmu]

I see no problems with any of those sources, although I don't know much about Townhall. GlobalSecurity is an excellent source.

I used to do work for Global Security, but they took a lot of flack, because prior to US boots on the ground in Iraq, we thought it was a lock Saddam had mobile chem labs, as well as a a terror training camp at Salman Pak. Usually when GlobalSecurity comes up as a source on lefty sites, it is discounted immediately.

[leekohler]

I used to do work for Global Security, but they took a lot of flack, because prior to US boots on the ground in Iraq, we thought it was a lock Saddam had mobile chem labs, as well as a a terror training camp at Salman Pak. Usually when GlobalSecurity comes up as a source on lefty sites, it is discounted immediately.

Gee- wonder why? Given what you just said, they don't sound all that reliable.

[stevegmu]

Gee- wonder why? Given what you just said, they don't sound all that reliable.


In the intelligence community, what one knows to be fact, and what one can definitively prove, and have hard evidence for are 2 different things- especially when things get buried in the desert.

[miloblithe]

Gee- wonder why? Given what you just said, they don't sound all that reliable.

Lee, that's one subject. Are you going to assume they're wrong about everything else too?

Are you going to assume this is incorrect?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_es.htm

[hulugu]

I used to do work for Global Security, but they took a lot of flack, because prior to US boots on the ground in Iraq, we thought it was a lock Saddam had mobile chem labs, as well as a a terror training camp at Salman Pak. Usually when GlobalSecurity comes up as a source on lefty sites, it is discounted immediately.

As I understand it, one of the things that became clear after the invasion was while Salman Pak was real, it was part of Saddam's system to train the fedayeen to fight a guerilla war against the United States. It was precisely the invasion that sparked the creation of the fedayeen.

[leekohler]

Lee, that's one subject. Are you going to assume they're wrong about everything else too?

Are you going to assume this is incorrect?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_es.htm

Of course not. But they were grossly wrong about what Iraq had, which is going to severely damage their credibility in many circles.

[MikeTheC]

The biggest problem I see is that there are agendas within agendas throughout this whole entire matter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unlike during the Vietnam war, where there were relatively few groups (or even individuals) with an agenda, and those agendas were fairly easy to spot, in the present day everyone including the news media as a whole and each network or agency on it's own have agendas, along with the government, politicians seeking (re)election, etc.

Part of the reason it's hard for us as members of the "general public" to form a single, relatively cohesive opinion is that it's as though all possible sources of information cannot be trusted. And then we've all also become so polarized that even *we* have our own agendas, which further add to the complication of this mess.

I mean, even in this thread, we've got the surge, and we still can't come to a consensus of opinion whether it's working or not.

Heck, we can't even come to a consensus on when life begins, much less any other more mundane matters. I'm not trying to say we all need to become robots and walk, talk, and think the exact same way, but please...

[stevegmu]

As I understand it, one of the things that became clear after the invasion was while Salman Pak was real, it was part of Saddam's system to train the fedayeen to fight a guerilla war against the United States. It was precisely the invasion that sparked the creation of the fedayeen.

Most Middle Eastern nations with dictators have a Fidayeen force- a volunteer militia, of sorts, loyal to said dictator. It is thought Fidayeen Saddam was formed in 1994 by Uday Hussein, who used them to carry out terror. They weren't particularly well-trained, nor skilled, and were thought to mostly be thugs, which is why Salman Pak didn't make sense as a training ground for them. The Republican Guard, maybe, but they had their own facilities. Unfortunately, those who knew what really went on at Salman Pak disappeared prior to the US invasion. There was a sense Salman Pak was used to train fighters from other terror states- like Syria as well as jihadists from Saudi Arabia.
At one time Salman Pak was a weapons facility, and it was thought to be operational again prior to the US invasion.

[solvs]

I don't think this is ignorance on Americans parts or a media conspiracy to supplant the war with the economy
The fact that you can still read these stories, if you choose to, suggests to me that this isn't a media issue, it's a public attention span and priority issue.
I didn't say it was conspiracy, but I think IJ has a point, also alluded to by others. The public doesn't want to think about it anymore. We're tired of the war. That sounds awful, but that's what it is. The media started seeing this, and being all about ratings and money began to cover it less and less because their audiences probably didn't want to hear about it in as much detail anymore. My guess.

The media began to take the spotlight off Iraq when the troop surge began to show results.
All I heard from the media was that the surge was working, despite the fact that none of the goals were met and violence is only barely back down to where it was a few years ago.

C. Rangel introduced legislation proposing the reinstatement of the draft. Odd he didn't vote for it when it reached the floor.
Uh, that was to make a point. He didn't expect it to pass, nor did he want it to. He clearly gave his motives.

There has been a substantial drop in violence in Iraq. If there were daily bombings with mass casualties, Iraq would be covered in greater detail.
There are still daily bombings with casualties. That was kinda the problem, was that it became the norm. And despite drops in violence recently, still is. Again though, even if violence is slightly down (and it is only slightly, especially compared to the entire occupation, not just the period right before the surge) none of the other goals have been met. Nor are our numbers sustainable. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out in the OP, while we're surging in Iraq (still with no exit strategy) we're losing the other regions that actually are a threat where our actual enemies are.

The stories that the OP posted where the first I've heard of those things.
Kinda my point.

How could any reduction in violence be unwelcome?
It isn't, but thanks for the strawman. The problem is that some people see the fact that violence has gone down and somehow equate that with success. Or worse, sustainable success. It isn't. It's a last ditch effort that we can't keep up and is already showing signs of not working anymore. Even if we ignore the lack of political gains, self sufficiency of the Iraq military, or the myriad of other problems still plaguing the whole situation. All while we're practically ignoring the real threats elsewhere that we're currently losing.

Violence is down to where it was a few years ago. Kinda. Great. It's not enough. And no, I'm not happy that it's not enough. Nor do I appreciate the implication that I revel in the bad. I've had loved ones over there as well. I'm worried of future terrorism. I care about my country just as much as anyone else, and hate to see us losing. But at least I can admit there are still problems. I don't have to attempt to justify this disaster saying things are working, ignoring what isn't. It doesn't change anything. A little better than terrible is still pretty bad. Look at the above links, and you'll see why I'm still angry.

Somehow, I think if the troop surge had not shown positive results, the media would be all over the story.
Of course, because in the run up to the war, no one supported it. You don't hear repeatedly how the surge has worked. Things are still going bad, and even when it isn't a large explosion like we just had, which I guess doesn't count when we talk about how the surge is working, we hear about all the problems all the time.

Except, you know, none of that.

I'm pretty sure most on here would agree with the quotes I provided, and defend them as fact.
Except that no one has, or probably will.

[IJ Reilly]

I mean, even in this thread, we've got the surge, and we still can't come to a consensus of opinion whether it's working or not.


This has been mentioned probably a hundred times already, but the actual goal of the surge was not to reduce violence, but to create an opportunity for political and ethnic reconciliation. Less violence has not produced any movement on that front. So by the only useful measurement of success, the surge has been a failure. Also, it's important to note that one of the key reasons why ethnic violence has been reduced in Iraq is the nearly complete segregation of religious sects -- otherwise known as "ethnic cleansing." This was a goal of those who were producing the violence in the first place. So to me, it appears that they are the ones who have succeeded.

[hulugu]

This has been mentioned probably a hundred times already, but the actual goal of the surge was not to reduce violence, but to create an opportunity for political and ethnic reconciliation. Less violence has not produced any movement on that front. So by the only useful measurement of success, the surge has been a failure. Also, it's important to note that one of the key reasons why ethnic violence has been reduced in Iraq is the nearly complete segregation of religious sects -- otherwise known as "ethnic cleansing." This was a goal of those who were producing the violence in the first place. So to me, it appears that they are the ones who have succeeded.

I agree, however I wonder if the temporary pause in violence gives an opportunity for political reconciliation that can only happen if this pause continues. Thus, while the "surge" hasn't yet worked, does it create a moment of opportunity?
I'm not sure, but it seems that as troops leave Iraq those forces in waiting will attack the civilian population again.

[NAG]

Such a "pause" would have to last a very very long time. These groups have hated each other for a long time. Bush then decided to stick his nose in, remove Sadam, and democracy would spontaneously happen with the US setting up their economy (essentially making them a colony). The surge is just as foolish. It isn't sustainable unless there is a draft (fat chance there) and we'd have to somehow force the various groups to work together (basically, they have to be invested in working together instead of the same old power struggle). So I guess by making them all hate us we might be on the right track.

[miloblithe]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080212/wl_time/underestimatingalsadragain

he six-month ceasefire that Moqtada al-Sadr called in August 2007 is set to expire at the end of February. Observers believe the freeze in operations of his Mahdi Army is a major reason for the recent security successes in Iraq; and most expected it to be extended. But recently the Sadr camp has said that it might end the ceasefire. On January 18, a spokesman for Sadr in the religious capital of Najaf issued a statement warning that "the rationale for the decision to extend the freeze of the Mahdi Army is beginning to wear thin." Is the U.S. alarmed? It is not - and that is alarming...

[IJ Reilly]

I agree, however I wonder if the temporary pause in violence gives an opportunity for political reconciliation that can only happen if this pause continues. Thus, while the "surge" hasn't yet worked, does it create a moment of opportunity?
I'm not sure, but it seems that as troops leave Iraq those forces in waiting will attack the civilian population again.

Maybe, but I think the evidence suggests that Iraq is becoming more tribal, like Afghanistan or Somalia. They don't have a credible national government, and those with the power have little (and perhaps decreasing) incentive to create one. If the troops stay or go, the results are going to be about the same I suspect. The country now appears to be hopelessly fragmented.

[stevegmu]

The country now appears to be hopelessly fragmented.

Is this a viable solution?
Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq

A decade ago, Bosnia was torn apart by ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a single country. After much hesitation, the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords,which kept the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of American and other forces, Bosnians have lived a decade in relative peace and are now slowly strengthening their common central government, including disbanding those separate armies last year.

Now the Bush administration, despite its profound strategic misjudgments in Iraq, has a similar opportunity. To seize it, however, America must get beyond the present false choice between "staying the course" and "bringing the troops home now" and choose a third way that would wind down our military presence responsibly while preventing chaos and preserving our key security goals.

The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests. We could drive this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact.

It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor. Meanwhile, the frustration of Americans is mounting so fast that Congress might end up mandating a rapid pullout, even at the risk of precipitating chaos and a civil war that becomes a regional war.

As long as American troops are in Iraq in significant numbers, the insurgents can't win and we can't lose. But intercommunal violence has surpassed the insurgency as the main security threat. Militias rule swathes of Iraq and death squads kill dozens daily. Sectarian cleansing has recently forced tens of thousands from their homes. On top of this, President Bush did not request additional reconstruction assistance and is slashing funds for groups promoting democracy.

Iraq's new government of national unity will not stop the deterioration. Iraqis have had three such governments in the last three years, each with Sunnis in key posts, without noticeable effect. The alternative path out of this terrible trap has five elements.

The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely populated areas of mixed populations would receive both multisectarian and international police protection.

Decentralization is hardly as radical as it may seem: the Iraqi Constitution, in fact, already provides for a federal structure and a procedure for provinces to combine into regional governments.

Besides, things are already heading toward partition: increasingly, each community supports federalism, if only as a last resort. The Sunnis, who until recently believed they would retake power in Iraq, are beginning to recognize that they won't and don't want to live in a Shiite-controlled, highly centralized state with laws enforced by sectarian militias. The Shiites know they can dominate the government, but they can't defeat a Sunni insurrection. The Kurds will not give up their 15-year-old autonomy.

Some will say moving toward strong regionalism would ignite sectarian cleansing. But that's exactly what is going on already, in ever-bigger waves. Others will argue that it would lead to partition. But a breakup is already under way. As it was in Bosnia, a strong federal system is a viable means to prevent both perils in Iraq.

The second element would be to entice the Sunnis into joining the federal system with an offer they couldn't refuse. To begin with, running their own region should be far preferable to the alternatives: being dominated by Kurds and Shiites in a central government or being the main victims of a civil war. But they also have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20 percent (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues.

The third component would be to ensure the protection of the rights of women and ethno-religious minorities by increasing American aid to Iraq but tying it to respect for those rights. Such protections will be difficult, especially in the Shiite-controlled south, but Washington has to be clear that widespread violations will stop the cash flow.

Fourth, the president must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest). We must avoid a precipitous withdrawal that would lead to a national meltdown , but we also can't have a substantial long-term American military presence. That would do terrible damage to our armed forces, break American and Iraqi public support for the mission and leave Iraqis without any incentive to shape up.

Fifth, under an international or United Nations umbrella, we should convene a regional conference to pledge respect for Iraq's borders and its federal system. For all that Iraq's neighbors might gain by picking at its pieces, each faces the greater danger of a regional war. A "contact group" of major powers would be set up to lean on neighbors to comply with the deal.

Mr. Bush has spent three years in a futile effort to establish a strong central government in Baghdad, leaving us without a real political settlement, with a deteriorating security situation — and with nothing but the most difficult policy choices. The five-point alternative plan offers a plausible path to that core political settlement among Iraqis, along with the economic, military and diplomatic levers to make the political solution work. It is also a plausible way for Democrats and Republicans alike to protect our basic security interests and honor our country's sacrifices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[IJ Reilly]

Is this a viable solution?

It's difficult to mention this plan without uttering the word "Turkey," but this writer manages it somehow. The Turkish government has long resisted the entire concept of an autonomous Kurdish state, even within a theoretically federated Iraq. I suspect the Turks recognize that no federal Iraqi government is likely to have the powers to maintain central authority that are theorized to be possible here. We may be slouching our way towards this "solution" but I think unlike Bosnia it is not going to be viable due to historically fervent regional opposition.

[stevegmu]

Maybe Turkey could be offered concessions for allowing a neighboring state of Kurdistan to exist, namely EU membership?

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe Turkey could be offered concessions for allowing a neighboring state of Kurdistan to exist, namely EU membership?

I don't see any quid pro quo in that, even assuming it was possible. The Kurds in Turkey and the Turkish government would have to reconcile their differences, which in the great tradition of the Middle East go back to the beginning of Time itself. So long as they are at loggerheads, the Turkish government is going to view an autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq as a refuge for insurgents and a security threat. If the situation continues to deteriorate in Iraq they might ultimately become convinced that it's better than complete chaos, but that's a least a few more painful steps down the road I expect.

[Ugg]

Is this a viable solution?


I think the comparison to the former Yugoslavia isn't very good. The southern slav states banded together at the end of WWI as a means of protection against a possibly resurgent Habsburg Empire and or a threat from Italy. At the end of WWII, Tito's force of personality kept them together AND each member state of Yugoslavia had a constitutional right to secede from the Union.

No such sense of ethnic states exists in Iraq. Sure, Kurdistan has been more distant from the center of Iraq, geographically, economically and ethnically. But even in Kurdistan tribalism is more important than a sense of ethnic solidarity.

By carving out three states all that would happen is an increase of tribal based politics within each state, creating three times the problems, not lessening them.

For a long time I did think that partition was the best solution, but that was before I understood how strong tribalism is in Iraq.

[stevegmu]

Seems there is no solution, then. The Shiites and Sunnis have gone back to fighting a 7th Century war, without a brutal dictator to keep them in line. The Kurds end up getting caught in the crossfire, and have aspirations for a Kurdish state- which involves parts of Turkey and Iran. Should the US pack up and leave tomorrow, most likely a full-scale civil war would erupt, leaving a window of opportunity for Iran to double in size. If Syria and Iran were to get involved, we'd have a regional war.

[IJ Reilly]

Seems there is no solution, then. The Shiites and Sunnis have gone back to fighting a 7th Century war, without a brutal dictator to keep them in line. The Kurds end up getting caught in the crossfire, and have aspirations for a Kurdish state- which involves parts of Turkey and Iran. Should the US pack up and leave tomorrow, most likely a full-scale civil war would erupt, leaving a window of opportunity for Iran to double in size. If Syria and Iran were to get involved, we'd have a regional war.

Yes, this is Bush's gift to the world.

[stevegmu]

Yes, this is Bush's gift to the world.

Very constructive.

[gauchogolfer]

Very constructive.

I'm not sure that was sarcasm, I would say that you've summarized the situation quite nicely.

[stevegmu]

How quickly some forget.

"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,

Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)

Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/12/mil-011207-usia04b.htm

[gauchogolfer]

How quickly some forget.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/12/mil-011207-usia04b.htm

Was this letter based on opinions the Senators formed on accurate intelligence, or intelligence that was biased/cherrypicked to yield the results the Executive Branch wanted?

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not sure that was sarcasm, I would say that you've summarized the situation quite nicely.

Yes, that would be my point. I'm not sure how "constructive" we're supposed to be in the face of such a colossal blunder.

[stevegmu]

Was this letter based on opinions the Senators formed on accurate intelligence, or intelligence that was biased/cherrypicked to yield the results the Executive Branch wanted?

There were 2 bipartisan investigations concerning the intelligence reports leading up to the war. Neither found the intelligence was cooked.

You can download the censored reports here-
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

The Committee found that none of the anaIysts or other people
interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions
related to Iraq’s links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous
pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an
intelligence failure on the scale of 9m.. As a result, the IntelIigence Community’s
assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links. For instance,
the June 2002 Central Intelligence Agency assessment Iraq and al-Qaida: InterpretiHg a
Murky Relatiunship was, according to its Scope Note, “purposefully aggressive” in drawing
connections between Iraq and al-Qaida in an effort to inform policymakers of the potential
that such a relationship existed. All of the participants in the August 2002 coordination
meeting on the September 2002 version of Iraqi Support for Terrorism interviewed by the
Committee agreed that while some changes were made to the paper as a result of the
participation of two Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staffers, their
presence did not result in changes to their analytical judgments.


http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec14.pdf


"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

[solvs]

Seems there is no solution, then.
Again, kinda why we're so pissed.

And this was Bush's baby. Well, PNAC's actually, but his administration executed it. The fact that the Dems, and press, and most of America hopped up on the bandwagon doesn't change that. Nor does it change how badly the actual implementation is, the ever changing reasons, and the continued support of failing policy while saying we should listen to the generals, but not actually listening to the generals, who've since come out to tell us how badly everything was implemented. And that we should be focusing on the 'stans, which we're also now losing, being stretched to the limit as is.

More of that: Army Buried Study Faulting Iraq Planning (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1202734815-EjLRNPMaFxWpkAcEq6yzVg&oref=slogin)

[stevegmu]

Again, kinda why we're so pissed.

And this was Bush's baby. Well, PNAC's actually, but his administration executed it. The fact that the Dems, and press, and most of America hopped up on the bandwagon doesn't change that. Nor does it change how badly the actual implementation is, the ever changing reasons, and the continued support of failing policy while saying we should listen to the generals, but not actually listening to the generals, who've since come out to tell us how badly everything was implemented. And that we should be focusing on the 'stans, which we're also now losing, being stretched to the limit as is.

More of that: Army Buried Study Faulting Iraq Planning (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1202734815-EjLRNPMaFxWpkAcEq6yzVg&oref=slogin)



It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback. I'm yet to hear any viable solution from the Dems, with the exception of the Gelb-Biden plan.
Pulling out troops and asking Iraq's neighbors to help Iraq is laughable.

[skunk]

It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback.Some of us have been consistently against this entire idiotic, murderous and dangerous adventure from the outset.

Pulling out troops and asking Iraq's neighbors to help Iraq is laughable.And impotently supervising an ongoing disaster is not?

[stevegmu]

Some of us have been consistently against this entire idiotic, murderous and dangerous adventure from the outset.

And impotently supervising an ongoing disaster is not?

Bill Clinton said the same thing several weeks ago. Turns out he lied.

Still no possible solutions, other than condemnation?

[Ugg]

Still no possible solutions, other than condemnation?

The best thing at this point is to get Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia involved. Ignoring them in the lead up to the war in Iraq has proven to be disastrous. Any attempt to shut them out of Iraq's future will be doubly so.

[skunk]

Bill Clinton said the same thing several weeks ago. Turns out he lied.So because Bill Clinton may have lied, you are claiming that I am lying too? :confused:

[IJ Reilly]

So because Bill Clinton may have lied, you are claiming that I am lying too? :confused:

Only as an exercise in pure reductive logic, of course.

[stevegmu]

There have been many who have claimed to have been against the war from the beginning, that they knew what would happen, blah, blah, blah. I don't believe most of them.

[skunk]

There have been many who have claimed to have been against the war from the beginning, that they knew what would happen, blah, blah, blah. I don't believe most of them.There are some who still claim it was a good idea. I don't believe any of them.

[IJ Reilly]

There have been many who have claimed to have been against the war from the beginning, that they knew what would happen, blah, blah, blah. I don't believe most of them.

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Many of us have been discussing these issues on this board for close to five years now. I think we know who to believe on this subject.

[Eric Piercey]

There were 2 bipartisan investigations concerning the intelligence reports leading up to the war. Neither found the intelligence was cooked.



You point eludes me. The authors of the letter were "genuinely" fooled? The war conspirators lied well? The intel was indeed cooked. The whole war with Iraq was a sham from day one, planned well in advance of 9.11. One need not have "proof" something stinks just because they can't pinpoint the source of the smell.

We the people.. we're cattle to them. The real manufacturers of all this instability are gearing us up for a plausible mass extermination. We're standing around like cattle in a stall waiting to be slaughtered by even letting this war against terror continue. These women who are being defaced, tortured, beheaded because of fundamentalism..it's an atrocity. These things are done keep the whole thing going. When attention of the cattle of the US fully turn away from the Middle East you can just bet something big will happen.

This forum has some very good thinkers who are well read, logical, and practical but the absolute detachment is symptomatic of a society which is so insulated from the bloodbath that "academic" sparring on the internet is just a sport. It's not academic. All this crap going on in the world is not only happening, its connected. In a sea of sleepers you have this segment who while remaining asleep themselves banter about the fragments of reality they manage to eek out. You've all heard the frog in the boiling pot analogy. Who's more pathetic the frogs thinking about catching flies or the frogs arguing over fineries of the spectrographic analysis of the flames boiling the water their in? This bothers me. Republican vs Democrat is the absolute least thing we need to be worried about. We're all being manipulated on a grand scale and the time to stop bickering and unite is yesterday.

Our attention needs to be focused on crisis management. Large population centers are still sitting ducks for everything. The dollar is as good as gone. Why aren't people in Washington DEMANDING answers from the world banks. Stimulus package? Show of hands... who in this room really thinks this is going to stimulate anything? It's a laugh. We need to start demanding answers from the people in Washington. Iraq is a quagmire. We all know it, but there are would be solutions. The problem is the powers that be don't want this conflict resolved. If nobody's noticed America isn't exactly on the worlds bestest nation list anymore and the cold war is heating back up. Israel knocked off a big hezbollah guy today. Half the funds in my IRA portfolio have fallen 10% in the past month. Houses are depreciating still.

Damn I've done it again.. gone off on a tirade. Back on track.. yes I remember Iraq. I think those who care are thinking about it daily. The mass media is crap- yes but what is there to report? There's no shock value. It's already been said in this thread.. what bleeds leads.

[stevegmu]

Where's my tin-foil hat...?

[IJ Reilly]

Where's my tin-foil hat...?

Probably right where you left it.

[solvs]

It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback.
Except it's still Sunday, and we're still far from winning, if it's even possible at this point. Some people just can't seem to see how far we're down, thinking when we go up a couple yards that means we're winning. No matter how far we actually wind up going backwards in the same play. But it's a nice way to discount the critics, because you can keep waiting for that clock to run out.

I'm yet to hear any viable solution from the Dems, with the exception of the Gelb-Biden plan.
That might not work either. But again, that's the point. There probably is no good solution, let alone a perfect one. Why we're so pissed at those who screwed it up so badly. We've yet to see a good plan from the GOP either, unless you think doing the same unsustainable things over and over again is a good plan. Ignoring the obvious that if they had planned better in the first place, we wouldn't need to be worrying about plans now.

Pulling out troops and asking Iraq's neighbors to help Iraq is laughable.
We're going to have to do that eventually, but it's not like we all think we should beg Iran and Bin Laden for help then pull all our troops out tomorrow like you seem to think we all do.

Bill Clinton said the same thing several weeks ago. Turns out he lied.
"Clinton did it!"

Still no possible solutions, other than condemnation?
Of course we condemn those responsible, because there are no good solutions... why wouldn't we?

There have been many who have claimed to have been against the war from the beginning, that they knew what would happen, blah, blah, blah. I don't believe most of them.
Look back a few years here and you'll see who was against it and why.

Not that that has anything to do with anything though.

Where's my tin-foil hat...?
A post like that and that's you're only response? And you wonder why we think you're just trolling. How 'bout you prove us wrong and actually debate the points with some facts instead of the rhetoric and insults.

Bush sought way to invade Iraq 8 months before 9/11. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)

[Prof.]

If I believed in God, I'd pray for a draft. It would end all this madness.
NO!!!!!!!!!

I don't want a draft.

Wait... I was rejected:D Never mind, I'm safe.:cool:

[Eric Piercey]

Where's my tin-foil hat...?

Yep good answer -reach straight for the Ad Hominem.

Why bother to think at all when you can just call anyone who doesn't agree with you a tinfoil hat wearing crazy person and bury your head back in the sand. Now that I think about it -you're right, everything is just great. There are no hidden agendas. The war with Iraq was absolutely justified- just a simple misunderstanding fueled by anger in the wake of the 911 terrorist attacks. No pre-planning of such a maneuver of any kind took place. There are no elite pushing buttons in Washington. The US government has never even conceived of doing anything disingenuous. The news (and hence public opinion) isn't controlled by private gigantic corporations. Oil companies are trying desperately to push alternative energy because they really care. What was I thinking? Silly. We need to fight terrorism no matter what the cost! Those who profit from this war are our friends and co-patriots in the fight against evil. They're just like our forefathers who wrote the constitution.. and they would agree that we need to fight against tyranny and those terrorists sure are oppressing us! Let's dump 95% of our GNP into this war! Let's melt down our pots and pans to make guns..well maybe we can ship our pots and pans to some other country who has manufacturing so they can make us guns.

I realize its psychologically traumatic to even consider that you've been played so hard for so long. Why even glance down the hard path when it's painless to just write all that off as paranoia. But, if you hear anything I have to say consider one thing.. what's the cost of refusing to think? What if your head is in the sand? What if you are just a good drone that does what its told. Is that fine with you?

[solvs]

UNICEF appeals for $37 million to save vulnerable Iraqi children (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_42810.html).

No commentary, just something we don't always think about when discussing this subject.

[solvs]

Baghdad's Green Zone Attacked (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8V08Q2G0)

That doesn't sound good.