| Author | Post |
|---|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 06:22 pm |
|
Whowee! Fred, I usually just glance at these threads about Iraq because we have a totally polarized set of bloggers on this issue just as we do in the rest of the country , but I just couldn't resist a snicker at one of your comments where you say the NY Times is or was Pro-Bush. You have truly jumped the shark on that one. If there is a more determined newspaper to cause Bush problems , it has to be the NY Times. I don't care about the stories their people generate out of whole cloth -that's just sloppy editing and phony journalism but the drumbeat has been constant with their editorial staff against anything Bush does and...
No point going on, -I'm sure you can find an article somewhere in that paper that was grudgingly supportive of something he did , but a 'supporter' -no way.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 04:43 pm |
|
Fred, we've given them the training and the resources. The numbers don't lie. In addition to all those we've trained, they had a large well trained standing army that looted the ammo dumps after the invasion.
Pure speculation, but I think they are just waiting for us to leave to commence real hostilities if a total pullout occurs. Our position as referee while we are there is keeping a lid of the all out commitment of each sides forces.
If we pulled out totally, the war would probably not go well for the Sunnis, Even though there is much talk of a wider regional war because the Sunni's would pull in the Saudi, and the Shi'ite would pull in Iran, (leave Turkey aside for a moment) I'm not sure that is the case. The control of the Saud's is very shaky and I don't think anyone could really predict whether they would risk strengthening Wahabiism in Saudi Arabia (the number one threat to their rule) while simultaneously courting a war with Iran. The upshot - I believe, would be that Sunni in Iraq would get the message that re-enforcements aren't coming for them, but that the Shi'ite, -if they need it (and they probably wouldn't) - will be aided by Iran.
Faced with that stick and the carrot of a regime willing to threat them like Iraqis first and Sunni second, I think peace would arrive quickly and with relatively little violence.
If the UN - most especially the regional players - become involved diplomatically, then there is a good chance this same scenario would play out under their watch.
Where the real danger lies is Bush and his desire to promote a wider conflict.
He wants the social order in the Islamic countries destroyed so it may be rebuilt and he is just waiting for an excuse to pull the trigger. Congress gave him clear warning on this one, so he has to temper his impatience. But even though peace is possible, I fully expect the situation to escalate unless Congress takes drastic action.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 12:46 pm |
|
Coogans Bluff wrote: “The Islamists believe we can’t win; so does The New York Times. But it falls to the American people to decide the issue.” —Victor Davis Hanson
“We are seeking to create order in Iraq, while al-Qa’ida seeks to create disorder. It is orders of magnitude easier to create chaos than it is to create order. That doesn’t mean it is impossible. But it will require patience and above all, will.” —Mona Charen
“How the threat of a resurgent al-Qa’ida is ameliorated by a hasty U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, no Democrat, liberal Republican or member of the media has yet explained.” —Oliver North
On your first quote....it is more then just the NY Times. Up until recently, they have been great supporters of the war, as have many other pro-Bush newspapers and Repubs. Facts have changed, and while I believe that we do need a better plan then pulling everybody out immediately, we have accomplished militarily all that we can. The surge was put in place for one very specific purpose....to give the Iraqi government a bit of space and breathing room to accomplish some fundemental tasks. We did our part; they did not.
On the second quote.....Charen would lead you to believe that there are two parties in Iraq...us for the forces of good, and AQ representing the forces of evil. Unfortunately, this misses the point of the various other groups who also are working for their own purposes. AQ is a player in Iraq, but not one of the top ones...yet, and they weren't a player at all until we went in there.
On the third quote.... First, who is calling from withdraw from Afghanistan? Sounds like alarmist crap coming from Ollie.
IF the administration had done a bit more planning, and had been able to give a concrete plan of what the post-Iraq was going to be like, we would not have this issue right now. It is their fault that we are in the mess we are in; we can't abandon what we trashed, but we've got to get them to take their share, as well. What most want is the Iraqis to step up....I want to give them some resources, including equipment, so they can better do their job, and the training and some support, but it has been five years...they have to do a better job.
|
Coogans Bluff
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 11:21 am |
|
“The Islamists believe we can’t win; so does The New York Times. But it falls to the American people to decide the issue.” —Victor Davis Hanson
“We are seeking to create order in Iraq, while al-Qa’ida seeks to create disorder. It is orders of magnitude easier to create chaos than it is to create order. That doesn’t mean it is impossible. But it will require patience and above all, will.” —Mona Charen
“How the threat of a resurgent al-Qa’ida is ameliorated by a hasty U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, no Democrat, liberal Republican or member of the media has yet explained.” —Oliver North
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 04:08 am |
|
I believe Wes Clark outlined what Congress is aiming for. I mean, it is perfectly in line with what the Dem leaders have been saying, only Clarke gives more specifics:For this reason, I believe the time has come for the Congress to demand that the Administration begin the redeployment of American ground forces and state publicly and clearly that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq. At best, this underscores the seriousness of the American people and helps incentivize Iraqi leaders themselves work to stop the conflict through suitable dialogue and compromise. Thus far, this has been notably lacking among the Iraqi's. At the very least, the redeployment will provide immediate relief for overstretched US ground forces.
These initial redeployments would be modest in scope, designed to stimulate internal Iraqi political dialogue, incentivize more intensive Iraqi efforts at accommodation, and underscore to the region that the United States will not be held hostage. I would like to see the withdrawal of two brigades over the next six months.
But this should be coupled with legislation compelling the Administration to address to Congress its strategy and regional efforts within sixty days. Pending suitable modifications to the Administration strategy to encompass full diplomatic and political efforts in the region and within Iraq, and assuming continual recommendations by military commanders to retain the enhanced troop levels, then Congress should support the "current less two brigades" force through March, 2008, after which the US forces should begin a twelve-month transition out of direct combat operations, except against Al Qaeda, with a residual training, security, and counter-terrorism force sized in the 50-80,000 range, which will gradually phase out.
This is the force which would effectively under gird US diplomacy, assist the Iraqi's, maintain US capabilities against terrorists, and provide sufficient relief for the US to regain strategic military maneuverability.
However, if the Administration refuses to change its strategy appropriately, then I would see the need for a more rapid withdrawal of US forces, commensurate with reduced chances of success and the greater likelihood of having to reengage militarily within the region at a later time.
To underscore the obvious, the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily, and certainly not with the limited US forces currently deployed. The hour is late, but not yet too late, to leave behind an integral, developing, and stable Iraq. But it is also true that the Administration has demonstrated its incompetence in designing and carrying out a strategy for success. And so I appeal to members of this committee to do your duty: help save our military, and help rescue our nation from the perilous consequences of our strategic blunders."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 02:29 am |
|
I actually agree that Congress should not be dictating this....a full out withdraw by that date is not possible, and irresponsible. I also do think it is a bit of theater....most really don't want the troops out by next April, but they want to pressure the President to take action to start the process, and this is the opening gambit.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 02:19 am |
|
| You may have missed the fact U. N. Secretary General Bah warned the U. S. Monday that an abrupt withdraw from Iraq would deepen the chaos. Eventually we must withdraw, but the method, timing, and coordination with the Iraqi forces is vital. This April stuff is border line insanity,
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 12:10 am |
|
Really good article, Newsy...sums up the situation pretty well. Only thing missing (and this probably is the key) is what the relative likelihood of the outcome will be.
I hope that the last situation holds...I think there will be some bloodshed, but I really think the Iraqi government has to figure out the right combination and strategy to hold on to power....our forces can help train, we can provide them with resources, including intelligence and airpower, but they really have to do it themselves.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 957 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18th, 2007 05:59 pm |
|
Austin Bay: Iraqi Withdrawal: Seven Scenarios
What happens if the United States and coalition forces withdraw rapidly from Iraq? The U.S. and the Iraqi governments have their own scenarios. Iran, al-Qaida, Syria and Turkey have also analyzed potential outcomes.
http://www.townhall.com
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 06:30 pm |
|
Wes Clark to Congress last week:
"These questions are in no way the material of abstract, hypothetical musings. Just about everyone in public life has now formed strong opinions, and certainly the American public has, also. By strong majorities they believe the war is unwinnable, and want the strategy changed. They also want the troops brought home - and taken good care of when they return here - but they don't want to lose. And so the public debate has increasingly turned on the consequences of a withdrawal for Iraq, our friends in the region, and for ourselves - with a "precipitous withdrawal" being the one which leads to increased violence.
You can receive the testimonies of the generals and state Department experts that can discuss every tribe, militia and province. I don't propose to do that today. But what I would like to do is offer my perspective on the region, and then propose a course of action which could prove to be the "least worst" of the choices available.
The United States is today engaged in a four-fold struggle in the Middle East, and each of the struggles is interconnected with the others. At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically, to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region. Second, the US works to assure to security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region. Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself. Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda.
These struggles help frame the ongoing conflict in Iraq, circumscribing the options and weighting the alternatives. The US will not and cannot abandon the region, nor our friends and interests there. The analogy with the US withdrawal from South Vietnam ought therefore to be unthinkable. US interests require continuing engagement in this region. But neither can the US make mincemeat of the fragile and artificially created states in the region, nor the governments that rule them, however much we should disagree with their policies and principles, for any of these existing governments is, if not a bulwark against a stronger Al Qaeda presence, then at least a regional actor which may be held accountable in some sense. We don't need any more failed states in the region, whether in Gaza or in Iran. Yet over the next twelve-to-eighteen months the Iranian nuclear effort is likely to culminate in the credible capability of significant uranium enrichment, and, absent a real diplomatic initiative from the Bush Administration, either this Administration or the next will be forced to acquiesce in an Iranian nuclear capability - with all the risk that entails - or execute a series of air and naval strikes to delay or destroy that capability - with the risks of further aggravating tensions and terrorist activities as well as disrupting global markets and flows.
So, the issue isn't troop strength in Iraq, but rather US national strategy in the region. As of now, it is not too late for that strategy to be significantly altered. The US would have to renounce its aims and efforts of regime changes, pull back such forceful advocacy of democratization, engage in sustained diplomatic dialogue with governments in the region, including Syria and Iran, heed the advice of regional friends and allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates and Qatar, and work not to isolate Hamas but to reshape it. This new strategic approach to the region must be linked to a deeper, more effective political effort within Iraq to align interests and structures, in order to produce the kinds of compromises necessary to end the civil war there. The tactics, principles and techniques of such a shift in strategy are no mystery. I and many others have for years called for such changes. But it seems all too clear that the leaders in the White House today have not, thus far, even seriously considered such change. They persist in seeking a largely military solution, focusing on troop strength and tactics, and have had the temerity to label a 20% increase in US troops as a "new strategy," when all along it has been obvious that we have needed perhaps three times the on-the-ground troop presence they directed.
Consequently the "surge" strategy has produced no miracles: some local progress in Baghdad neighborhoods, perhaps, and an accompanying effort, perhaps underwritten by our Saudi friends, against Al Qaeda in Anbar. But the political agreements expected to emerge, miraculously, from the presence of a few more thousand US troops in Baghdad haven't.
The deeper truth is that we are engaged in a civil war inside Iraq aided and abetted by outside powers. It is not at all clear that the "surge" will, even were it to succeed in reducing the violence, bring this war to a successful conclusion. We are playing on others "home court." They own porous borders, language skills, long term relationships inside Iraq, and sufficient means to ratchet-up resistance and encourage divisiveness when and where it suits their purpose.
When well-trained and equipped troops are thrown into stabilization missions, they normally do succeed in temporarily tamping down violence. This is the historical record of occupying armies, from Europe to Asia. Local opponents watch for vulnerabilities, redeploy to elude the occupier’s grasp, and deepen their structures in preparation for the resumption of hostilities. But unless mechanisms for political reconciliation take hold, violence seems inevitably to resume and escalate as aggrieved parties find ways and means to pursue their aims despite the presence of an occupying force.
In the case of Iraq, these tendencies are exacerbated by the competitive struggle between Iran and its Shia surrogates, and the Saudi and Jordanian support for the Sunni's. The Iraqi government itself lacks the legitimacy and capability to resolve this struggle, whatever its "legality.". And so, no matter the vicissitudes in civilian deaths, or car-bombings, or disappearances in Baghdad, the underlying dynamics of the struggle continue. This Administration has refused to address their strategic causes and has left our brave soldiers and Marines hostage to a regional power struggle.
For this reason, I believe the time has come for the Congress to demand that the Administration begin the redeployment of American ground forces and state publicly and clearly that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq. At best, this underscores the seriousness of the American people and helps incentivize Iraqi leaders themselves work to stop the conflict through suitable dialogue and compromise. Thus far, this has been notably lacking among the Iraqi's. At the very least, the redeployment will provide immediate relief for overstretched US ground forces.
These initial redeployments would be modest in scope, designed to stimulate internal Iraqi political dialogue, incentivize more intensive Iraqi efforts at accommodation, and underscore to the region that the United States will not be held hostage. I would like to see the withdrawal of two brigades over the next six months.
But this should be coupled with legislation compelling the Administration to address to Congress its strategy and regional efforts within sixty days. Pending suitable modifications to the Administration strategy to encompass full diplomatic and political efforts in the region and within Iraq, and assuming continual recommendations by military commanders to retain the enhanced troop levels, then Congress should support the "current less two brigades" force through March, 2008, after which the US forces should begin a twelve-month transition out of direct combat operations, except against Al Qaeda, with a residual training, security, and counter-terrorism force sized in the 50-80,000 range, which will gradually phase out.
This is the force which would effectively under gird US diplomacy, assist the Iraqi's, maintain US capabilities against terrorists, and provide sufficient relief for the US to regain strategic military maneuverability.
However, if the Administration refuses to change its strategy appropriately, then I would see the need for a more rapid withdrawal of US forces, commensurate with reduced chances of success and the greater likelihood of having to reengage militarily within the region at a later time.
To underscore the obvious, the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily, and certainly not with the limited US forces currently deployed. The hour is late, but not yet too late, to leave behind an integral, developing, and stable Iraq. But it is also true that the Administration has demonstrated its incompetence in designing and carrying out a strategy for success. And so I appeal to members of this committee to do your duty: help save our military, and help rescue our nation from the perilous consequences of our strategic blunders."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2552
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 12:27 pm |
|
Not sure it is not already in the handbasket, and neither is Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who I think sums it up best when he says that......
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/16/gop-senator-to-rove-bush-legacy-on-the-line-in-iraq/
In private, Voinovich is more blunt, using a profanity to describe the White House’s handling of Iraq by charging the administration “f—ed up” the war.
I think that about sums it up, and I agree that no matter what party gets in next time, we are in for a rough time. Iran and Iraq will both be Shia' controlled, however, so I don't think Iran is going to have to do too much to get them in their camp.
There is going to be bloodshed and carnage there for a while to come....the question is whether we are simply stretching it out, rather than it happenning at once. I wish the Iraqis could figure out a way to do this peacefully, but they have had 5 years and have made little progress.
All of that being true....I still don't think the answer is to pack everything up and go home, but the Adminstration has left many in Congress with that as their only option. I would have liked to have seen specific benchmarks tied to both carrots and sticks to the Iraqis, but it may be too late for that here, politically.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 369 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 12:10 pm |
|
| I think that is all going to go to hell in a handbasket when Iran makes their move but probably not until after the '08 elections. It doesn't matter which party is in office. I don't think we can successfully pull out of Iraq at this point without making things a whole lot worse. Either way it sucks foir Israel and, of course, us too. With us out of the way, Iran will move against Israel sometime when therer is enough chaos in the region.
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16th, 2007 10:57 am |
|
Although we play no essential role in formulating a policy for the Iraqi government, a triparte government has been suggested as the best course of action with the Kurds, Sunni and Shia sharing the divided nation. No one has come up with an enforcement m,ethod of the distribution of the vast oil revenues that Iraq has. No, I myslef do not see any long term, meaningful allignment between Sunni and Shia. They may share some common ground regarding Israel but that is as far as it goes. I am not that well informed regarding the Iraqi "mess" as you call it (and it is). We have our hands full with the Gaza and the lands known as the West Bank (Sumaria and Judea).
We are also concerned that Hamas may soon violently overthrow the lebanese government by assasination of the sectarian moderates. We know that Syria and Iran have different plans. For years we have attempted to maintain relations with the moderate, sectarian governments that have come and gone through the decades. We have always considered a successful Lebanon as a good trading partner in commerce and tourism. At one time we sponsored tours that included the Holy Land and Beiruit, once a jewel of the Middle East.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16th, 2007 10:46 am |
|
Given that the Shia's in Iraq are the majority, and they feel somewhat pissed at the Sunnis' for the treatment Saddam gave them during his reign.....do you think there is any chance that the Shia's won't align with Iraq at some point? One of the goals we have had is to try to figure out a way to do a power share so that each group in Iraq has a say...but, of course, the Iraqis (okay, the Shia's) would say that we are trying to thwart the will of the people.
It is a mess, and it is not going to get any better.
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16th, 2007 10:27 am |
|
Non-Subscriber Extract
Sectarian rivalries blight Iraqi intelligence 'services'
In a further sign of Iraq's deepening sectarian divisions, security chiefs in Iraq's Shia-dominated government have formed a shadow intelligence service to rival the Iraq National Intelligence Service (INIS), created and funded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and that is manned largely by Sunnis and former members of Saddam Hussein's mukhabarat (secret police). The head of the INIS is General Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani.
The hostility between these two services is intense. The overall Shia objective seems to be to eradicate, or at least drastically reduce, US influence within the security establishment and put intelligence gathering firmly under Shia control. This is at a time when speculation is growing that a large-scale US military withdrawal may be ordered in the coming months. The emergence of this new service could be bad news for the US because it might facilitate penetration of Iraq's security establishment by the intelligence services of neighbouring Shia-majority Iran.
Senior officials in Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, including national security adviser Mouafak al-Rubaie, insist that the Iranians have no say in how Iraq is run. But the US is adamant that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, through its elite Quds Force, are arming, funding and training militant Shia organisations and even some Sunni factions to keep Iraq in turmoil. Tehran denies that, but the two countries are locked in a covert intelligence war. The emergence of rival, highly partisan intelligence services will exacerbate the sectarian bloodletting in Iraq and, given the explosive nature of the conflict, could thrust them into open warfare.
While it is not possible to determine what damage marginalising the new intelligence service will have on US policy and operational capabilities in Iraq, the Ministry of the Interior is flexing its muscles at a time when the US is vulnerable, not just in Iraq but in the wider regional context. Events in Iraq impact directly on situations in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, the US confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme and in the Middle East generally.
343 of 894 words
© 2007 Jane's Information Group
End of non-subscriber extract
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16th, 2007 12:33 am |
|
So an Iraqi civil war is supposed to be the same as the normal functioning of our government?
Well, personally I disagree with you. I think this nation is great precisely because we have brought forth a form of government where the PEOPLE are sovereign.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
A lot of people have died establishing, maintaining and protecting the very government you slander. For some reason, I'm completely confident that you are one of those right wingnuts that absolutely loves to question the patriotism of others...
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16th, 2007 12:32 am |
|
We get spoiled, I think, about how good our government really is...and it is only when we see a country like Iraq through a microscope we should thank our lucky stars that ours works as well as it does, even though we complain.
Given a choice between a great government running your affairs from overseas, and having your own that probably has a lot of growing pains in front of it, what do you think they would want? I know we answered that question about 230 years ago.....
|
Intrepid
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kent County |
| Posts: | 255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15th, 2007 10:50 pm |
|
| Why should we expect the Iraqi government to do better than our government?" Our government su(cks totally...They can't get anything right... And yet, we expect the Iraqis to do better with the little they have? Anything our elected officials do right, I'm convinced it's by accident.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15th, 2007 10:37 pm |
|
On to another point of confusion by the Bushies:
Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined
Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.
By Ned Parker, Times Staff Writer
July 15, 2007
In Saudi Arabia
click to enlarge
BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.
About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.
Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.
He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.
The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
The problem casts a spotlight on the tangled web of alliances and enmities that underlie the political relations between Muslim nations and the U.S.
Complicated past
In the 1980s, the Saudi intelligence service sponsored Sunni Muslim fighters for the U.S.-backed Afghan mujahedin battling Soviet troops in Afghanistan. At the time, Saudi intelligence cultivated another man helping the Afghan fighters, Osama bin Laden, the future leader of Al Qaeda who would one day turn against the Saudi royal family and mastermind the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has long been a source of a good portion of the money and manpower for Al Qaeda: 15 of the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks were Saudi.
Now, a group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq is the greatest short-term threat to Iraq's security, U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said Wednesday.
The group, one of several Sunni Muslim insurgent groups operating in Baghdad and beyond, relies on foreigners to carry out suicide attacks because Iraqis are less likely to undertake such strikes, which the movement hopes will provoke sectarian violence, Bergner said. Despite its name, the extent of the group's links to Bin Laden's network, based along the Afghan-Pakistani frontier, is unclear.
The Saudi government does not dispute that some of its youths are ending up as suicide bombers in Iraq, but says it has done everything it can to stop the bloodshed.
"Saudis are actually being misused. Someone is helping them come to Iraq. Someone is helping them inside Iraq. Someone is recruiting them to be suicide bombers. We have no idea who these people are. We aren't getting any formal information from the Iraqi government," said Gen. Mansour Turki, spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry.
"If we get good feedback from the Iraqi government about Saudis being arrested in Iraq, probably we can help," he said.
Defenders of Saudi Arabia pointed out that it has sought to control its lengthy border with Iraq and has fought a bruising domestic war against Al Qaeda since Sept. 11.
"To suggest they've done nothing to stem the flow of people into Iraq is wrong," said a U.S. intelligence official in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "People do get across that border. You can always ask, 'Could more be done?' But what are they supposed to do, post a guard every 15 or 20 paces?"
Deep suspicions
Others contend that Saudi Arabia is allowing fighters sympathetic to Al Qaeda to go to Iraq so they won't create havoc at home.
Iraqi Shiite lawmaker Sami Askari, an advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, accused Saudi officials of a deliberate policy to sow chaos in Baghdad...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?coll=la-home-center
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15th, 2007 12:27 pm |
|
Most of the problems with the Iraqi military keeping their strength up has been the amount of desertions....they have historically been seeing desertion rates in the 50% level.
Some units initially did better, such as the Kurdish units...but their numbers showed a similiar drop when they were deployed to Baghdad, as they did not think the battle between the Sunnis and Shia's is their concern.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060201/NEWS/602010334/1002/NEWS01
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 11:29 pm |
|
Because failure to report has been a chronic and THE major factor in not being able to field enough Iraqi.
The show up, get trained, and quit. We've been "training" them for 4 years now and they are only able to field MAYBE 6000-10000 troops?
Who in the %($* are you trying to kid?
It they were motivated to participate they could right this minute form a roughly organized fighting force of ten times that number. They just don't WANT TO.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 11:13 pm |
|
OK, I'll play along , why DO you think the readiness numbers of the Iraq army are due to desertions? Has ole John Murtha been feeding you facts again?
Well, it is sad that the Iraq parliment or whatever they are called are bagging the month of August and won't have much accomplished. They should take an example from our Congress and see how it really is done. But, maybe their people feel the same way most of ours do and would rather the sumbitches stay home than come into Washington or Baghdad and just screw the country up more.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 07:46 pm |
|
Well, according to AP and the Iraqi Prime Minister, they are able to do just fine without us. I suspect that is true.
Notice the decline in the number of Iraqi units that are mission capable. the reason given is intriguing "the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives."
A 40% reduction in readiness due to unspecified "attrition"???
Why do I think it is desertions and not casualties that is causing such a drastic operational impact.
PM: Iraqis Can Keep Peace Without U.S.
Jul 14, 7:30 AM (ET)
By BUSHRA JUHI
BAGHDAD (AP) - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when pressure in the U.S. Congress is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political reforms it wants al-Maliki to carry out.
Moreover, the Pentagon on Friday conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi battalions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives....
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 12:55 pm |
|
WASHINGTON — The White House on Friday appeared resigned to the fact that the Iraqi parliament is going to take August off, even though it has just eight weeks to show progress on military, political and economic benchmarks prescribed by the United States.
"My understanding is at this juncture they're going to take August off, but, you know, they may change their minds," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.
"You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August," he said, sympathetically.
Well, after getting sooooo much done, they need August off.
He was then reminded of the US Soldiers and Marines who will continue the fight through August....and his answer was "That is a good point".
Oh, well, maybe next year.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2959 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 10:07 pm |
|
US doubles Bin Laden reward to $50 million
Senate doubles Bin Laden reward
The US Senate has voted 87-1 to double the reward for the death or capture of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden to $50m.
The Senate vote comes amid warnings that al-Qaeda has rebuilt its capacity to mount attacks and is trying to insert agents into the US.
"It has been six years, and al-Qaeda is now rebuilding its terrorist training camps," said Senator Byron Dorgan.
Intelligence analysts told Congress on Wednesday that al-Qaeda had created a safe haven in remote parts of Pakistan.
A leaked draft of a new US intelligence report says al-Qaeda is at its strongest since just before the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said earlier this week that he had a "gut feeling" that the US would be at greater risk of attack over the next few months.
President George W Bush has played down the anxiety, however:
"There is a perception in the coverage that al-Qaeda may be as strong today as they were prior to September 11th," he said on Thursday.
"That's simply not the case."Last edited on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 10:08 pm by Bluesman
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1450 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 08:37 pm |
|
| I also think that far too little attention has been paid to the opinion of the generals who are in the field. Maybe that's why so many retired, perhaps prematurely. As for the aforementioned generals, just think how different things may have been had we listened to them. Hitler certainly would have been better off with Rommel's counsel. Maybe if we listened to Patton, there may have not been a Soviet Union. MacArthur could have knocked the NK's and Chinese back to rickshaw days. Who knows?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 12:41 pm |
|
I think this sums up the difference....
WASHINGTON - President Bush scoffed at public opinion yesterday and lectured lawmakers that the role of Congress is to fund the troops in Iraq - not direct the war.
"I don't think Congress ought to be running the war; they ought to be funding our troops," Bush snapped during his first news conference in the renovated White House briefing room.
While no one denies that the President is the Commander in Chief, I suspect most Americans want Congress to do more than rubber-stamp the President's requests. Congress has, and will, fund the troops....but it the only power they have to try to get the President to change his decision, and it was a power granted to them in the Constitution for cases exactly like this.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1450 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 12:27 pm |
|
| There were a lot of missed opportunities that one can lay at the feet of Cheney and Rummy. Ever since MacArthur and Patton (and even Rommell on the German side), military strategy should rest in the hands of the generals.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2959 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 06:14 pm |
|
Fred,
It is ironic that you express that viewpoint. I have heard the exact same views expressed over the last several weeks by some military personnel ( friends) who have returned from Iraq.
Last edited on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 06:15 pm by Bluesman
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 05:34 pm |
|
| Thank you, Fred. I was thinking along the same lines but I do not have the depthj of military experience that you have. I suppose all is too late to even point in that direction.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 05:27 pm |
|
When you talk about individual decisions that were made, it is easy to make the case in either direction.....my main concern is that ANY of the mistakes we have made could have been corrected or modified if we had done appropriate follow up actions.
As for the specific question....I don't think there is any doubt that it was a mistake to disband the 300K troops of Saddam's army, if for no other reason that they immediately became one of the main elements of the resistance.....they simply had nothing else to do.
Most of the military is like every other military...composed of average people. Some, especially those at the top echelons, probably needed to be removed/retired immediately, and even tried by the Iraqi people for their actions, such as gassing the Kurds. We would have needed a lot of retraining of the Iraqi army (similar in concept if not in scale to what we did with Panama's troops)....which would have had it's own set of problems. We would have had to figure out a way to get greater input to the other factions in Iraq that were not part of the military,but I think that would have been easier to figure out, and we would have had more security in Iraq, then we got by disbanding the Army.
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 05:14 pm |
|
| Question, Fred. In your military opinion (not political), was it a mistake to disband Sadaam's army totally or should we have been able to utilize the military commanders as did General Patton after WWII? Do you think it would have made a difference or be advantageous to us?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 11:57 am |
|
I don't think getting out entirely is going to happen, or should happen. Congress is setting their position, as is the administration. We do have some level of responsibility, but we've got to shift the burden to the Iraqi government. We need to be there to train and assist the military, and maybe even be the quick reaction force that the Iraqi Army can call upon, but we need a process to get them to take the lead role....5 years is long enough for us to secure their freedom; they need to step up.
Last edited on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 11:58 am by Fred
|
Jamesm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 04:50 pm |
|
| Jamesm wrote: The sooner we get out of Iraq the better off the USA will be. We should stop talking about Iraq as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans and as much as I hate to say it, must Americans want us to get out.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 12:29 pm |
|
Welllll....to defend CR to a very small degree, some Repubs ARE probably following the lead of Dems and switching positions, based, I would agree, on a combination of the facts on Iraq AND political pressure. I have no problem admitting that the pressure is one part of the component; I just wish some would agree that things are not hunky-dory over there, and there is and needs to be pressure to change. As I've posted since I was there, change doesn't mean packing up every lock, stock and barrel and bringing them home by next Tuesday. The longer the administration has resisted the real changes, which would be an admission that they screwed up, the fewer options we have.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2959 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 11:43 am |
|
LCR you know you put all of us to task asking for facts to back up our statements.
Post facts to support your claim that politicians who are now speaking out are only doing so to "save their asses" during election time.
Post one article about any politician who is quoted as stating "I am no longer supporting the Administration on this war because it is election time. I'm bailing ship and saving my ass"
Last edited on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 12:04 pm by Bluesman
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 10:13 am |
|
I thought the piece spoke for itself, but if you want to know what specific goals the President set for Iraq (and pissed off the President of Iraq for daring to do such a thing)....
The President wanted the surge so the Iraqis could have regional elections this year. He also wanted some additional power sharing legislation that has been promised for years. He had also stated that Makiki had planned to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. There was also the oil sharing bill that was important to both the regions of Iraq and our oil companies interest, which came the closest, but only because they tried to do it in secret (many Iraqis fear that our influence will somehow benefit the US and British oil companies).
These were the major ones, although Congress wrote 18 goals into the law, as well, which is what gets reported on in September. These (such as rewrite of their Constitution, which left a lot of things undecided when they originally drafted it) are not going anywhere, either.
Again, not to say that there is not forward progress, but not by the benchmarks set up by the President and Congress.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 01:53 am |
|
| Ummmm... Where are the facts Fred. You have presented opinion and conjecture. I don't have a problem with it. That's what we do on an opinion thread. But, please don't claim fact, when you have given none.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 01:38 am |
|
Let's try again, with some facts...
The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter. As they prepare an interim report due next week, officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war.
The question really isn't whether the 30-50K additional troops have made some progress....I don't think anyone argues that the additional troops have had some positive effect...the question is whether or not those positive effects (Anbar Province, for one) should outweigh the negatives of not accomplishing any of the benchmarks defined as showing progress....
In other words, can you chagne the test questions after you turn the paper in?
I was listening to either MSNBC or Fox News this morning, and heard a guy making the case that we just need one more year......I don't think politically the administration has another year, but the neocons seem to be already priming the "all we needed was another x months" pump...
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 6th, 2007 03:18 am |
|
LCR wrote: Any politician who publically speaks out against the efforts of his or her country while they are at war is less than human in my book. We are a unified country, not a bunch of namby pamby wimps looking for a way to back away from our country.
Our Congress voted with near unanimity to fight this war. Now the politicians want out to save their ass from defeat at the polls.
It is amazing how you manage to dull the line between the efforts of the fighting force and those who are supposed to lead it.
Our Congress voted on a bunch of lies they were told. Yes, they should have been smarter than to accept the caveted information, and, truth be told, they were cowed into not looking "weak on terror".
One thing that you will soon get your wish on....we ARE becoming a united country on this issue, but not the way you would want it to be.
I heard a discussion today (on the CIA releasing the "family jewels"....in it, President Johnson ordered the CIA to spy on Americans because he was convinced....he KNEW the anti-war protest HAD to be stirred up from outside. Because he had this gut feeling, because he KNEW what was really behind the anti-war movement, he ordered something that the CIA knew was wrong, and told him repeatedly that there was no outside agitators. It is amazing how a President can get into the situation where he is convinced with every fiber of his body on the truth of something....and will stop at nothing to prove that it is right.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2959 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 6th, 2007 02:03 am |
|
LCR wrote: Any politician who publically speaks out against the efforts of his or her country while they are at war is less than human in my book. We are a unified country, not a bunch of namby pamby wimps looking for a way to back away from our country.
Our Congress voted with near unanimity to fight this war. Now the politicians want out to save their ass from defeat at the polls.
I notice you didn't include any citizen who goes to Canada and protests nuclear weapons testing, during wartime. How self serving and convenient....EXACTLY what I come to EXPECT from you.
You were a namby pamby to the worst degree when you were in Canada during Viet Nam and you still are.....
The only difference now you are a hypocritical one. Now you point the finger at condemn people for doing the same thing YOU did, while you were in Canada, during Viet Nam.
They are speaking out against this war (a war based on lies I might add)........you have no integrity and have no right to be judging anyone.
Last edited on Fri Jul 6th, 2007 10:26 am by Bluesman
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 6th, 2007 02:00 am |
|
Now that smarmy self serving RINO Pete Dominici has defected.
I guess it is going to get down to Cheney, Bush, Rove, Barney and our local Log Cabin Republican.Last edited on Fri Jul 6th, 2007 02:05 am by
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 6th, 2007 01:45 am |
|
| Any politician who publically speaks out against the efforts of his or her country whil | | |