bush is about to announce that he is increasing the military in Iraq by 15,000-20,000, with some to be stationed in Kuwait. Will this work? What is "victory" in Iraq now? Will an increased military accomplish any real good? What will this increased military mean, and how much closer will it put us to something that can be called a victory? Is it expected to actually provide a victory or is it just intended to sdlow down the rapidly worsening conditions in Iraq? (Is it intended just to buy time until bush leaves office so he can say "Hey, we were winning when I left, so it's not my fault"? It doesn't matter that we are NOT winning at this point; if Iraq is still going on when he leaves, he will make that claim.)
And...what if it doesn't work? What if it makes things worse, assuming that it can get worse? At what point do we say, "You know, this isn't working"? Is there some type of measurement or landmark that must be met for it to be declared a victory? What if it is not met, or it becomes obvious to even more that it cannot be met? What should the US do then? *************************************************************** 01-08-07, 06:28 PM newnickname 'It would still take that many troops, not the 20,000 we might scrape together now. Last month the Army and Marines issued an updated field manual on counterinsurgency (PDF) supervised by none other than Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the next top American military commander in Iraq. It endorsed the formula that "20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents" is "the minimum troop density required." By that yardstick, it would take the addition of 100,000-plus troops to secure Baghdad alone.
The "surge," then, is a sham. It is not meant to achieve that undefined "victory" Mr. Bush keeps talking about but to serve his own political spin. His real mission is to float the "we're not winning, we're not losing" status quo until Jan. 20, 2009. After that, as Joseph Biden put it last week, a new president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof." This is nothing but a replay of the cynical Nixon-Kissinger "decent interval" exit strategy concocted to pass the political buck (to Mr. Ford, as it happened) on Vietnam.'www.truthout.org "It works" might mean that the misery and killings in Iraq continue at more or less the present rate, but the Whitehouse isn't stormed by outraged citizens. *************************************************************** 01-08-07, 07:24 PM DorianGreyed "Last month the Army and Marines issued an updated field manual on counterinsurgency (PDF) supervised by none other than Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the next top American military commander in Iraq. It endorsed the formula that "20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents" is "the minimum troop density required." By that yardstick, it would take the addition of 100,000-plus troops to secure Baghdad alone."
That formula, coming from Petraeus, is certainly interesting. It will be argued that the 100,000 will be met, but only by including all Iraqis in the police force, whatever military the government has, and all trainees. The fact that the Iraqis have yet to prove themselves in any meaning manner against their own countrymen will not be mentioned. *************************************************************** 01-08-07, 11:24 PM newnickname 'Democrats and some Republicans are questioning why Bush wants to send 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq and offer Iraqis some jobs programs, when similar tactics have been tried unsuccessfully in the past.
Indeed, one source familiar with high-level thinking in Washington and Tel Aviv said an unstated reason for Bush's troop "surge" is to bolster the defenses of Baghdad's Green Zone if a possible Israeli attack on Iran prompts an uprising among Iraqi Shiites.
The two U.S. aircraft carrier strike forces off Iran's coast could provide further deterrence against Iranian retaliation. But the conflict would almost certainly spread anyway.
Likely Hezbollah missile strikes against Israel would offer another pretext for Israel to invade Syria and finally oust Hezbollah's allies in Damascus, as the U.S. neocons had hope would happen in summer 2006, the source said.
In the neoconservative vision, this wider war would offer perhaps a last chance at achieving the regional transformation that has been at the heart of Bush's strategy of "democratizing" the Middle East through violence if necessary.
However, few Middle East experts believe that Bush really would want the results of truly democratic elections in the region because Islamic militants would almost surely win resoundingly amid the anti-Americanism that has grown even more intense since the hanging of Saddam Hussein in late December.
An Israeli assault on Iran could put the region's remaining pro-American dictators in jeopardy, too. In Pakistan, for instance, Islamic militants with ties to al-Qaeda have been gaining strength and might try to overthrow Gen. Pervez Musharraf, conceivably giving Islamic terrorists control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
For some U.S. foreign policy experts, this potential for disaster from a U.S.-backed Israeli air strike on Iran is so terrifying that they ultimately don't believe Bush and Olmert would dare implement such the plan.
But Bush's actions in the past two months - reaffirming his determination to achieve "victory" in Iraq - suggest that he wants nothing of the "graceful exit" that might come from a de-escalation of the war.' www.consortiumnews.com
'The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war--with much higher risk of catastrophic failure--not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.' www.thenation.com *************************************************************** 01-09-07, 10:23 AM newnickname An alternative plan:
'While the White House pretends that American defeat can be avoided in Iraq, real measures to end the fighting languish. The building blocks for peace should include the appointment of a peace envoy: probably a senior official from the Arab world trusted in the US and the Middle East and acting on behalf of the UN. He should start talks about calling an international conference at which all the players inside and outside Iraq can meet.
A central theme of the conference should be the total withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq, leaving no bases behind. Any final agreement should be in the shape of an international treaty including guarantees for minorities such as the Iraqi Kurds and Sunni. Finally Iraq should be neutralised like Austria in Europe in the 1950s.
There is no chance of this happening under Mr Bush. The reversal of policy would be too great and the admission of failure too humiliating.
Instead he is responding to failure like a First World War general on the Western Front, sending another 20,000 to 30,000 surging over the top in the vain hope that they will finally make the vital breakthrough which will lead to victory.' comment.independent.co.uk
I guess almost no one believes that the 'surge' (more of a trickle of troops called back early from leave) involves anywhere near the numbers that could be decisive.
That leaves people guessing about what Bush could be up to. The possibilities above seem crazy - he's preparing for a nuclear strike on Iran, or he's condeming thousands to death over the next couple of years to avoid losing face.
Maybe it's just the deadly incompetence that's been evident throughout his term. *************************************************************** 01-09-07, 02:41 PM sid1114 Surely bush doesn't actually believe that 20000 troops will tip the scale in our favor. It's either a couple hundred thousand, or nothing, in my opinion. But since the main fighting there is over centuries old beliefs, no outside army can prevail long-term. At some point, the other nations there have to get involved; if diplomacy were to work, it might be that Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran would agree to a sort of mutually-assured destruction stalemate. I don't see much hope for anything else.
So if bush is not so idiotic (wanna bet?) as to actually believe 20K makes a difference, then what is the reason he's doing it (assuming -- a day before his speech -- that he is)? Can it really be so cynical as a holding action to punt to the next president for the purposes of avoiding being the one to lose (as if it weren't already lost on his shift)? It's hard to imagine any other reason, and yet even I can't quite think he'd be that evil....
As to what if it does/doesn't work: if it does "work" (whatever that means) I suppose we'd see some sort of metastable country. If it doesn't, what we can hope for is a partitioned country with the outside powers (Iran, SA, Syria mainly) agreeing on their own to defend their surrogates to the extent that they'd agree not to fight. And, of course, keep the oil flowing. We must hope that they will ultimately see the future more clearly than our president, and agree that all-out war would be bad for them. In other words, we need to rely on pretty unreliable people to be more statesmanlike than our president has ever been or could ever be; we need them to be willing to fix what bush broke. No one else will. If they don't, it's armageddon. Hey wait... it's suddenly becoming clear... *************************************************************** 01-09-07, 05:38 PM FredPuli The retired General Keane, whose idea this seems to be, was being interviewed by the BBC tonight. He wanted thirty thousand troops sent, not twenty thousand. However he explained that in terms of brigades. He would have five brigades in Baghdad. He expects the President to have the same but not send so many men elsewhere. According to his analysis there are 23 districts of Baghdad where the trouble is.(These are mixed Sunni-Shia districts). There are about 1.8 million people .Only a small percentage are fighters. Therefore all the Americans have to do is militarily crush those people and the job is done.That means staying for a while in numbers, to take control, rather than a series of sudden strikes and withdrawal where the enemy will resume its position.
If he bothered to ask the British he'd find that dealing with such fighters is not that easy. Without getting the whole of the population on your side and against the troublemakers you have no chance whatsoever. *************************************************************** 01-10-07, 10:44 AM newnickname Another alternative plan:
'But first, the easy parts: Say we are leaving. Declare an immediate cease-fire. Stop all offensive military operations. Stop building bases. Repudiate any right or claim to any say in the politics or oil resources of a free and independent people in Iraq.
Appeal to nations, groups, and individuals with peace-building expertise in mediation, reconciliation, and reconstruction. People have done this before, in South Africa, Ireland, and the Philippines. These are the basics, things we have said all along.
But now, it is more complicated. The violence and disorder we have unleashed in Iraq can leave even the most committed peace activists asking hard questions.
Walking away from the oil, the permanent 'enduring' bases and the fortress/embassy are things that no one in the US seems to want to consider - the Democrats aren't talking about it.
The Big Idea behind Bush's surge is maybe going to be different rules of engagement:
'Last summer the U.S. launched "Operation Together Forward" with Iraqi troops in an effort to quell the violence in Baghdad. Despite an increase of almost 10,000 U.S. troops in the capital, the violence there worsened.
A top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, said that plan focused too much on Sunni insurgents and not enough on Shiite death squads, but said the U.S. will have a more "balanced approach" this time.'cnn.com *************************************************************** 01-10-07, 01:17 PM DvdGStwrt IF he listened to the Generals (The men who base their lives on military planning, and winning wars) The war with Saddam, or do we mean Iraq? would have been done and over with years ago.
Yes sending more troops in is sound military advice. However how you send them in and in what quantities will determine your win/lose factor.
We should send 300,000 troops in total (adding what ever we need to what we got over there) and have them armed and armored.
War is all about over kill - that's the point.
15 to 20 thousand men and women being sent is NOT enough. Not with what we are dealing with (sneak attacks, individual bombers, blah)
Bush is appointing another Brownie a "feel good" measure that will ultimately end up doing more harm than good.
If I was president and my military said 300 thousand - I would send in 600 thousand just to be certain. But then I actually like to win. *************************************************************** 01-10-07, 05:14 PM FredPuli If, in three years, the Americans and the Iraqis (who would 'step up as they stood down') have utterly failed to control Baghdad, to such an extent that violence is now at unprecedented levels, how does bringing in 20,000 troops make any difference? Where are the Iraqis who were to be stepping up to replace American forces in Baghdad and elsewhere? And what, exactly, was not being done before that the additional troops will now do?
The true significance of tonight's speech lies in the benchmarks, not in the numbers of troops sent (thinks a BBC commentator, who, incidentally, suggests that the additional troops bring the number only to a peak reached earlier and quite recently). The President's get-out is to say to the Iraqis 'meet these criteria, these benchmarks. We are making our one last effort,our last throw of the dice, we can do no more'. He then blames the Iraqis for any failure, throws up his hands, and says to the American people 'we did all that could be done'. If there's any improvement, even for five minutes, he claims the result a victory. Wink As an aside he is going to blame Syria and Iran for causing a lot of the trouble.He gambles, but not, in truth, with any great optimism, that his 'benchmarks', his threats to the Iraqi government, will produce progress and action from them.
It ain't going to work, but it might just con enough of the electorate back home Big Grin *************************************************************** 01-10-07, 07:31 PM newnickname Some pop-psychology from commondreams:
'..."I'm interested in one thing: I'm interested in winning," Bush said in a recent interview. "If we can't win, I'll pull us out.” Then he explained what “winning” means to him: “The only defeat is leaving, is letting things fall into chaos and letting al Qaeda have a safe haven.” Of course the longer U.S. troops stay, the deeper Iraq falls into chaos and the stronger al Qaeda becomes. So here’s what Bush really meant (translated by Washingtonpost.com’s chief Bush-watcher, Dan Froomkin): “Even if things are getting worse, rather than better -- simply staying is winning. … The only way to lose is to leave.” “I view this as a struggle of good versus evil,” Bush added. So staying is good; leaving is evil. Period.
That may sound like nonsense to most of us. But it makes good sense to the neocons, because their main goal is not victory in the conventional sense. Their main goal is to prove that America has manly character: we aren’t “cut and run” quitters; we don’t get weary, weak, or intimidated; we have the guts and moral fiber to stand up to every enemy, no matter how tough; we are real men who will endure any pain and make any sacrifice, as long as we are good guys fighting against evildoers.
For a neocon, determination, resolve, and sacrifice are not just useful tactics (as they are for the James Bakers of the world). They are moral qualities that prove we have the essential virtue: strength and fortitude. As long as we are standing tough and making sacrifices, we are proving our manly character. So we are defeating the real enemy: our own moral weakness. But to prove that kind of strength, we have to be out there fighting. That’s why it’s the act of making war, not the outcome, that counts most.
The neocons are set on making the whole country follow their example. According to the BBC, the “central theme” of Bush’s big speech “will be sacrifice.”..'
Is there maybe a fear of being seen to be defeated driving Bush's futile surge - as in Vietnam, the US has to at least maintain a facade of determination? That's an interesting thought - that, for these 'manly' types, "it’s the act of making war, not the outcome, that counts most".
I wonder if the speech will stress sacrifice. It's pretty obvious that rich shareholders like Cheney, their corporations, and even the average (non-military) American have yet to make any sacrfice at all. *************************************************************** 01-11-07, 10:54 AM newnickname No surprises, then, in Bush's speech.
'Perhaps the most alarming element of Bush's "new" plan for stabilizing Iraq is how much it relies upon the recommendations of individuals who have never set foot on a battlefield. Much of what the president outlined in a prime-time speech Wednesday evening - specifically, sending more than 20,000 additional soldiers into Iraq - was culled from the white paper, "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq," written by Kagan last month.' The Architect of Mr. Bush's Plan *************************************************************** 01-11-07, 11:42 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Perhaps the most alarming element of Bush's "new" plan for stabilizing Iraq is how much it relies upon the recommendations of individuals who have never set foot on a battlefield.
What? He's relying on the recommendations of Pelosi and company? *************************************************************** 01-11-07, 12:04 PM newnickname Ha ha. Roll Eyes *************************************************************** 01-11-07, 07:30 PM newnickname Annotate This: Escalation in Iraq *************************************************************** 01-13-07, 02:51 PM newnickname Yet another alternative plan: What would it take to create peace in Iraq? Meanwhile, Bush's response to critics:
'In his radio address, Mr Bush challenged Congress to come up with a better plan than his...'news.bbc.co.uk
Isn't that the typical lame response of a second-rate manager out of his depth - "Well, let's see you do better..."? *************************************************************** 01-13-07, 03:08 PM FredPuli Nice to know that all this mess is the fault of Iran Big Grin *************************************************************** 01-16-07, 07:36 PM newnickname Another commentary on the speech:
'Earlier this evening we aired a speech by President George W. Bush that may have left you with some false impressions. We need to correct these matters of fact.
The president's speech did not mention WMDs or Saddam Hussein or attempt to explain why we are occupying the nation of Iraq or what it would mean for that occupation to "win" or "lose." This may have left you with the impression that no justification is required by law to forcibly occupy someone else's country and kill a significant portion of their population. That is not the case.
The president made no reference to the permanent military bases he is illegally constructing in Iraq. This may have left you with the impression that he plans to leave Iraq some day. This, combined with his references to democracy, may have given you a certain idea of his plans for Iraq that does not seem to be suggested by the president's actions.
Bush also expressed support for a number of Middle-Eastern nations allied with the United States, notably Saudi Arabia. This may have given you the idea that these nations are democracies. They are dictatorships.
Bush began his speech by connecting Iraq to 9/11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We apologize to the millions who have lost loved ones because of this lie. When Bush said that al Qaeda was "still" active in Iraq, he failed to add that it had only become active in Iraq as a result of his invasion and occupation of that nation.
Bush said that he would see that the people of Iraq profit from its oil. This statement bears no relationship to actual US policy, and Bush has no legal right to decide what happens to another nation's resources...' ...and so on.
Apparently, the Japanese and Australian governments have officially welcomed the speech. Did anyone else like it? Any 'thirty percenters' out there? *************************************************************** 01-20-07, 12:55 PM newnickname 'Dribbling into Baghdad
The President's Iraq "surge" plan, his "new way forward," is but the most obvious example. "Surge," as a start, turns out to be a misnomer for the pathetic version of escalation now in the works. Of those 21,500 troops being "surged," some are simply being kept in Iraq longer than previously announced; others, already assigned to go, are being rushed Iraq-ward earlier than expected and undoubtedly less well prepared and equipped. They will, in fact, be dribbled onto the mean streets of Baghdad and al-Anbar Province from now through April. Add that four-month surge to the 130,000-odd troops already there and you don't even come near to reaching the troop levels the U.S. had in Iraq at the end of 2005 (when times were somewhat better).
Because of the overstretched nature of American troop deployments and a force structure threatening to come apart at the seams, the neocon fantasy of maintaining even such troop levels in Baghdad for a year to eighteen months is sure to be disappointed. This "drip, drip" of forces will be but so many drops in a quickly evaporating bucket. Since the President's "new" plan for success in Iraq has been broadcast to the skies in every media form imaginable, those who could feel its brunt in the Iraqi capital like Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, are already engaged in their own preparations to outlast it.
In the meantime, the U.S. will "embed" even more American trainers in the largely Shiite military and police forces in order to get a better handle on violence in the country; but since they are essentially training religious-cum-sectarian forces, they will, in fact, be "standing up" a motor for yet more civil strife and ethnic cleansing. In the meantime, some of the new Iraqi units being brought into the city to match the American surge will evidently be from Kurdistan, introducing not only another group of soldiers who won't even speak the local language, but also a new and combustible element in the civil strife already underway.
If there is to be a real surge in Iraq, we've already had a hint of where it is likely to come from - and it will have the potential to be even more disastrous, more instability-creating than any of the above. The day before the President's speech, not just American Apache helicopter gunships but jets hit the long resistant Sunni insurgent stronghold of Haifa Street, just adjacent to Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. This represents the sole kind of military power that the Bush administration could truly ratchet up - as well as a part of the Iraq war that the American media has adamantly refused to pay attention to since the invasion of 2003. Reporters in Baghdad simply will not look up. They may soon have to, however...'Crusading in the Arc of Instability *************************************************************** 01-20-07, 01:57 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Bush said in a recent interview. "If we can't win, I'll pull us out.” Then he explained what “winning” means to him: “The only defeat is leaving, is letting things fall into chaos and letting al Qaeda have a safe haven.”
If he didn't want al-Qaeda to have a safe haven then why did he overthrow Saddam? He acknowledges that Saddam was not behind 9/11.Al-Qaeda was. Their leader, a Saudi, was and is in Afghanistan. So a war on terror, on Islamic extremism, should not involve Saddam, a leader whose government was secular, and a man who had been in the habit of putting to death any religious figures who might influence his people e.g Mokhtada al-Sadr's father. The son is now rejoicing in leading the Mahdi militia. What chance would he have had under Saddam?
Does anyone in any of your media ever ask the President, face to face, that simple question ? Or any question which it might be difficult to answer? (It never looks that way in what we see over here . It always looks as though it would be an act of treason for an American to ask him anything like that in White House press conferences Big Grin ) *************************************************************** 01-22-07, 10:15 AM newnickname 'The political followers of Iraq's radical Shia cleric, Moqtada Sadr, say they are ending a two-month boycott of Iraq's parliament and government.'Sadr group ends political boycott
What's this all about? Is it a sign that the "surge" might actually work? ************************************************************ 01-22-07, 12:29 PM DorianGreyed If what I read yesterday on another news site is accurate, one of the key issues that Sadr's people are demanding is a timetable for a US withdrawal. It very well may be that Sadr's political advisors have decided that it is time to press that issue, feeling that other political groups will now agree to that condition. Rather than a step forward for the US, it may be seen as the beginning of the end of the US occupation of Iraq. ************************************************************ 01-22-07, 07:07 PM frankvan Couldn't it just as well mean that he believes the Sunnis can be handled quite handily once the U.S is out of the picture? That The Shiites and the Kurds can divide up the country and the oil, and get rid of the Sunni insurgents in a short civil war? ************************************************************ 01-22-07, 07:59 PM DorianGreyed You may be right, Frank; what you say is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. ************************************************************ 01-24-07, 09:52 AM newnickname Does this attack tend to suggest that the Iraqi forces cannot be trusted to 'stand up'? Several commentators have said it shows there must be heavy infiltration of Iraqi security forces by insurgents. ************************************************************ 01-24-07, 01:56 PM FredPuli Not long ago in Basra the British had to attack a police station to free about a hundred prisoners of the Iraqi forces. They found that many had already been subjected to torture and all were in imminent danger of being executed by their guards. It was in fear of that that the British acted to rescue them. Afterwards the British demolished the whole building.So much for trusting the Iraqis to safeguard their own. These men were to be summarily murdered. ************************************************************ 01-25-07, 09:18 PM newnickname '...In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq.
"He's tried this two times -- it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "
Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."'www.politico.com ************************************************************ 01-26-07, 02:42 AM babthrower Frankvan asks:
quote: Couldn't it just as well mean that he believes the Sunnis can be handled quite handily once the U.S is out of the picture? That The Shiites and the Kurds can divide up the country and the oil, and get rid of the Sunni insurgents in a short civil war?
That is such a very good question. That is the question that underlies all the rationales for foreign intervention in a good cause.
- Ending civil war is a good cause. - Ending racist, social class or sexist oppression is a good cause. - Ending economic oppression is a good cause.
Mind you, what 'oppression' is, is key these days. It seems that in some cases, to legislate maximum hours of labor and minimum hourly rate is interpreted as an officious invasion of the freedom of the employer, who is percieved to be the oppressed; however...
it seems to me that these interventions seldom work. It is the duty of the local population to deal with the issues.
Okay, that's not ideal and it's not fair. Usually attempts to gain social justice in a totalitarian state result in horrible oppression of the dissidents and, unjustly, memebers of their class. We see the history of peasant revolts in Western Europe.
Still, the result of foreigners entering the scene to sort things out have proved at best to establish a 'Roman peace' which dissolves immediately after the foreign police troops depart.
Even this 'Roman peace' is beneficial only in the best of cases - i.e. in which a core group of locals can sustain the rationale after the foreign police force departs.
So foreign intervention, justified by citing the wrongs of a subsection of the target country's population, is unlikely to succeed in establishing justice. Its hidden agenda is usually what has a better chance of success: that of establishing a military foothold in the desired territory. ************************************************************ 01-31-07, 01:41 PM newnickname Doubts are being raised about the first 'battle of the surge':
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Doubts are being raised about the first 'battle of the surge':
US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'
Not sure how this has anything to do with any 'surge' Smile On the official version we had any army led by some zealot who proclaims himself someone like John the Baptist and who is obsessed with the islamic equivalent of the Second Coming.That's how it comes to be that he is putting out a force of armed men and can have a pitched battle: not the tactics of insurgents or terrorists.This was all a very long way from Baghdad. He was allegedly intent on wiping out groups of pilgrims.
Whatever the truth, a BBC commentator drily observed that the result would please Moqtad al-Sadr, the leader of a Shi'ite militia. The zealot regarded al-Sadr and his supporters as an enemy. ************************************************************ 02-01-07, 11:17 PM newnickname Is there a start-date for the surge? As there isn't really going to be a 'surge', but some troops staying longer and others arriving earlier, the 'surge' could be said to start any time.
I guess this particular action - Iraqi soldiers over-reacting and calling in airstrikes on pilgrims - isn't turning out to be a good enough media opportunity to be portrayed as part of the surge. It doesn't bode well for the "Iraqis backed by Americans" idea, though.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 16984 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
'The U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq's security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been battling to take over much of the capital city as American forces are trying to secure it...'Mahdi Army gains strength through unwitting aid of U.S. ***************************************************************** 02-04-07, 08:04 PM newnickname ..."We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle."
Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.
"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla...'Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as a Lost Cause ***************************************************************** 02-05-07, 09:34 AM newnickname Sorry, my mistake - apparently 'the surge' won't happen for months yet.
'Despite Mr Hashimi's call for a speedy deployment, it is still likely to be several months before the US and Iraqi governments have the extra troops in place.'
However, there is going to be a 'rolling surge' in Baghdad - 'the third attempt at pacifying the capital since Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki took power in May' - in a few days.bbc.co.uk ***************************************************************** 02-26-07, 06:00 PM FredPuli Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
The British are removing 1,600 troops from Iraq as soon as possible.That was announced about a week ago.
The British government has now announced that it is sending a further 1,400 troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, as soon as possible.
The story is that we think that Afghanistan is a war we might win. In any case it is there that the likely founding of al-Qaeda terrorism is. Of course, the British terrorists, such as the ones who blew up underground trains, are all being taught in Pakistan not Afghanistan but, hey, the President of Pakistan is doing everything in his power to stop al-Qaeda and fundamentalist teachers of the ilk from operating in his own country, isn't he? Roll Eyes (Isn't he responsible for pardoning a man who was actively providing the Libyans and others with the plans and the means to produuce nuclear weapons?) ***************************************************************** 02-27-07, 08:29 AM bik74
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: (Isn't he responsible for pardoning a man who was actively providing the Libyans and others with the plans and the means to produuce nuclear weapons? )
Yes he is. But the thing is that the concerned person 'Abdul Qadeer Khan' is considered a national hero for making Pakistan nuclear. So Musharraf had some limitations over there. Musharraf in his book downplayed his role for making Pakistan nuclear. The common belief among many Pakistanis is that the government tried to privode/sell nuclear technology to Iran and Libya. They got caught and 'Abdul Qadeer Khan' was made the escape goat.
On a personal note Musharraf is trying a mix of diplomacy and force in northern areas of Pakistan. I think he is right. On a southern side, that is Punjab, i think he should use brute force and bring the mullas in line. He has no reason to think about public opinion. ***************************************************************** 02-27-07, 08:36 PM newnickname That 'rolling surge', 'pre-surge' or whatever it is in Baghdad doesn't seem to have been very successful so far:
'Nearly two weeks into the newest Baghdad security plan, the daily count of murder victims dumped on the city's streets has declined significantly, a likely sign that Shiite Muslim militia groups aligned with the Iraqi government have reined in their members or sent them out of the capital.
But deaths from bombings and mortar attacks, after an initial decline, have returned to the levels of the previous two months, suggesting that the plan's initial measures have had little impact on the Sunni insurgent groups believed to be responsible for most of that violence.
U.S. and Iraqi officials have released only limited information about what steps they've taken to secure the city since the plan's official kickoff on Feb. 15. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush last week that the plan, dubbed Operation Enforcing the Law, so far had been a "dazzling success." U.S. officials have been more cautious, saying that it may be months before the plan can be labeled a success or a failure.
Statistics compiled from official daily reports of the Interior Ministry and other Iraqi government sources, as well as interviews in 20 Baghdad neighborhoods about the plan's initial measures, however, show that some early judgments are possible about the plan's effectiveness. With most members of Congress expressing skepticism about the plan's prospects for success, such information could prove useful in the debate over Bush's plan to commit a total of 17,500 additional troops to the plan in the coming months.
From Dec. 1, 2006, through Feb. 14, the number of people killed in public places from violent attacks averaged 14.8 a day. From Feb. 15 through Monday, the number declined, but just barely, to 13.8. Car bombs were up slightly, from an average of 1.2 a day to 1.6, while roadside bombs were identical at 1 per day.
Injuries, on average, rose from 40.4 a day to 52.8 since the start of the plan, while bodies dumped by death squads declined from 22.8 a day to 14.6...'www.realcities.com
("Dazzling success"? It seems that Cheney, Blair and al-Maliki are competing for Comical Ali's crown.)
It isn't going to work, is it? Nobody even seems to know what success would look like. ***************************************************************** 03-18-07, 07:48 PM newnickname From hope to despair in Baghdad ***************************************************************** 03-20-07, 05:34 PM FredPuli Never mind. According to the head of the Iraq police in one province, about a third of his police are supporters of militias and the men who sympathise with militias may not be successfully be dismissed because they have political protection.{Link below] So if the surge, or anything else the Americans do, produces no result that won't be the fault of the Americans Smile The British (leaving, of course) are sanguine. They feel they have done some good.However, the last line in the link says a lot. A British officer explains "There's a level of violence here, but that is Iraq. It's been like this for thousands of years. It's not going to change"
Let's face it, we all know that the key is al-Sadr (and his Mehdi Army), don't we ? He's a popular leader who shows some political nous. He lies low knowing that he'll still be there, a leader of the Shi'ites, and running key areas when the Americans leave. The BBC reporter visiting Sadr City in Baghdad recently noted that the vehicles and passengers were checked by members of al-Sadr's people, his guards, whilst the official Iraqi police and military took no part. They stood idly by and just watched.It is evident that many communities rely upon the Shi'ite leadership locally, rather than on the Iraqi government, for help and aid be it for food or housing help or anything else.They will look to that leadership, personified by al-Sadr,rather than to any foreigner or the Iraqi government. ***************************************************************** 03-28-07, 08:58 PM newnickname Have the Car-bombers Already Defeated the Surge? ************************************************************** 04-11-07, 09:35 PM newnickname 'Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad - despite President George Bush's "surge" in troops - US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter.
The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.
The system has been used - and has spectacularly failed - in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops. The system of "gating" areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory - again, with little success...'news.independent.co.uk ************************************************************** 04-12-07, 03:29 AM FredPuli So it is working.Back home many Americans pay millions of dollars to live in a gated community, with security, restricted entry,i.d checks, passes, guards and all. The Iraqis are to get that for free.
Didn't you just know that we'd eventually bring freedom, democracy and American thinking to these people ? (Incidentally, why exactly, do some Americans want or need to be living in gated communities ? Is it dangerous to live without? Confused) ************************************************************** 04-16-07, 04:09 PM kathaksung The real people behind the insurgence are US and Israel intelligence and Pentagon. They try to provoke a civil war in Iraq so US Army can stay in Iraq until next war: Iran's or Syria's.
Will a peaceful Iraq needs US occupation troop any more? No, US will have no excuse to stay.
How can US troops stay in Iraq? When there is riot, car bombing, death squad killing, civil war.
Well, the terrorist is there, withdraw troops is cut and run, Bush says. So Bush can have US troops stay in Mid-east until the next war - a war on Iran or Syria.
That's why we saw Al Qaida (a special force to act on behalf of US intelligence) launched attack at Shiite shrine to start the conflict between Sunni and Shiite. We already know the 911 attack was in the name of Al Qaida which gave Bush the justification to start the war in Mid-east - war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US and Israel intelligence controlled death squad of Iraqis government which is used to kill Sunni people. On the other hand they controlled insurgence and Al Qaida to kill Shiite civilians by car bombing. That is how they create a civil war in Iraq.
And the question of this topic is meaningless (What if it works: What if it doesn't?) Because what they are playing is a cover up show. Demo palys the role of "demand withdraw". GOP plays the role of "surge". The drama is used to comfort American people. See, we have a debate, we are working.
What is the result? More troops in Iraq. They hang on and on until the time coming: when everything is ready for another war. So you see Bush now is accusing Iran supporting Iraq insurgence.
So the answer to the question is simple, it doesn't matter. Whatever happens, US troop will stay there until another war break off. ************************************************************** 04-24-07, 06:28 PM kathaksung
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Have the Car-bombers Already Defeated the Surge?
Where the car bomb came from?
Here is another case that US Army plant it to provoke a civil war in Iraq.
Quote, "He got suspicious because the Americans call him ask if he is already in the market Iraqirabita tell a story about an Iraq interpreter working in an American military base was sent to the city by his bosses to by computer hardware, he took the car but he stopped by friends.
He got suspicious because the Americans call him every now and then asking him if he already in the market, he parked the car in the middle of nowhere and answered yes, few minutes after that the car exploded. The guy left the country after that to Turkey.
For more information in English on American black budget special operations money being used to set up so called suicide bombing, below thewe.cc/archive2006/fallujah_ions_suicide_bombing ************************************************************** 04-24-07, 08:56 PM coldfuse Suddenly, it has hit me, like a ton of bricks. I hope kathkasung is right. If so, then we can win the war any time we want to. All we have to do is stop killing and bombing ourselves! ************************************************************** 04-24-07, 09:00 PM newnickname Aha. That's exactly what he wants you to think. It's a plot. ************************************************************** 04-24-07, 09:04 PM babthrower Well, it makes about as much sense as some of the scenarios we hear out of Bush. Confused Wink ************************************************************** 04-26-07, 10:25 PM newnickname Well, of course it's going to work...
...because if it doesn't work, then they'll just fiddle around with the presentation until it looks like it's working. That's just as good, eh?
And if you don't think much of that idea, then that just shows you're one of those trouble-making members of the reality based community. ************************************************************** 04-27-07, 02:34 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Well, of course it's going to work...
U.S. officials exclude car bombs in touting drop in Iraq violence
...because if it doesn't work, then they'll just fiddle around with the presentation until it looks like it's working. That's just as good, eh?
When are the Administration going to say that the Virginia Tech case is just one murder and we should ignore the number of casualties there? ************************************************************** 05-01-07, 10:33 AM newnickname Despair stalks Baghdad as plan falters ************************************************************** 05-07-07, 01:07 PM kathaksung
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Have the Car-bombers Already Defeated the Surge?
So many tricks to set up so many bombings. Many bombing aimed at Iraqi police. The heavy casualty of police can irritate a revenge from police to the insurgence (Sunni people). A way to escalate the civil war.
Khadduri's report
went like this:
Told him to report to an American military camp "A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license.
The next day, the driver did visit the camp and he was allowed in the camp with his car.
He was admitted to a room for an interrogation that lasted half an hour.
At the end of the session, the American interrogator told him:
'OK, there is nothing against you, but you do know that Iraq is now sovereign and is in charge of its own affairs.
Hence, we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing.
Therefore, go there with this clearance to reclaim your license.
At the police station, ask for Lt. Hussain Mohammed, who is waiting for you now. Go there now quickly, before he leaves his shift work".
The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him.
He stopped the car and inspected it carefully.
He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.
The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad.
The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated "hideous attack by foreign elements".
(http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA505A.html ) ************************************************************** 05-14-07, 01:44 PM newnickname This article points out that the final say on whether or not the surge works has been delegated, by design or default, to General Petraeus:
'Bush will be president and commander in chief for another 20 months. But in effect, he has surrendered his self-bestowed title of The Decider.
As of last week, Petraeus has become The Decider. If the general reports in September that the surge is making progress — and if that claim can be seen as legitimate by the public — he could convince a reluctant Congress to fund military operations through one more budget cycle.
However, if Petraeus decides he cannot legitimately claim progress, including concrete steps by the Iraqi government to live up to its obligations, he will force a dramatic change of course that politically, the president will be helpless to prevent.
That's a huge burden for an unelected official to bear...'www.ajc.com ************************************************************** 05-16-07, 12:30 PM kathaksung There is no civil war in Iraq. Most insurgence were created by US and Israel intelligence. The purpose is to justify US occupation in Iraq and prepare for the next war: to attack Iran.
But when the American people are tired of the killing and want a withdraw, how does Bush do to remain there? He accuses the withdraw is cut and run. Instead of withdraw he sends more troops there.
It will work because the insurgence and civil war are created by the intelligence and pentagon. To prove Bush is correct, they only need to give a command to postpone the "insurgence attack". That is how the topic "The surge is working..." comes out.
The Provocateur State: Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi "Insurgents"--and Global Terrorism?
by Frank Morales WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, May 10, 2005 www.globalresearch.ca 12 May 2005 The URL of this article is:
According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts. The P2OG, a 100-member, so-called "counter-terrorist" organization with a $100-million-a-year budget, would ostensibly target "terrorist leaders," but according to P2OG documents procured by Arkin, would in fact carry out missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among "terrorist groups"--which, according to the Defense Secretary's logic, would subsequently expose them to "counter-attack" by the good guys. In other words, the plan is to execute secret military operations (assassinations, sabotage, "deception") which would intentionally result in terrorist attacks on innocent people, including Americans--essentially, to "combat terrorism" by causing it!
