(Administrative notice: In a day or two, I am going to condense the first 10 or 15 pages of this thread. I will not save links. I am posting this now so that those who wish to save the links have time to do so.)

Now back to our regularly scheduled tug-of-war.

Baghdad diary. In Baghdad, the tactic seems to be to divide up the communities, using concrete walls. That's British too, I guess, but it's surely a tactic of last resort.

Letting the local strongmen keep the peace - Kurds in Kurdistan, Sunnis in al Anbar, and the Shias under Sadr in Basra - may have lessened the violence inside each province, but what's it going to do for the country as a whole?

Walls at districts? Yes, it is a British tactic.The walls didn't 'divide' neigbourhoods. The areas are already 'divided' in that they are each exclusively occupied by protestants or catholics. There are neigbourhoods of each. The walls were intended to stop murderous terrorists of either side from sneaking into the districts of the opposing sect, gunning down some innocent and disappearing. It works. If they are going to get in they must needs do so where we can see them and stop them at checks. We had one particularly bad instance in 1993 when the IRA got into the protestant Shankhill Road and bombed a shop where leaders of their protestant enemies were meeting.Nine protestants and one of the IRA men were killed.

Unlike Baghdad the walls did not result in one sect's district being held to ransom. The BBC reports that entry is sometimes denied to residents trying to bring in groceries etc from outside unless they pay a bribe.

It was coupled with installing heavily fortified look-out posts, with a small barracks beneath, as a kind of police 'station', which are set up in the districts.That way the terrorists knew perfectly well that we were not going away. We were not going to try to keep the peace from a distance and commute to districts when there was still the potential of trouble. No 'when the cat's away the mice will play' was to apply.

By the way, Northern Ireland is now governed locally by a protestant, the leader of the 'loyalist' element of that society, with a man who was once himself, long ago, a commander in the (opposing) IRA as his deputy (he had later turned to politics). Not sure what that suggests for Iraq !

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Walls at districts? Yes, it is a British tactic.The walls didn't 'divide' neigbourhoods. The areas are already 'divided' in that they are each exclusively occupied by protestants or catholics. There are neigbourhoods of each. The walls were intended to stop murderous terrorists of either side from sneaking into the districts of the opposing sect, gunning down some innocent and disappearing. It works. If they are going to get in they must needs do so where we can see them and stop them at checks. We had one particularly bad instance in 1993 when the IRA got into the protestant Shankhill Road and bombed a shop where leaders of their protestant enemies were meeting.Nine protestants and one of the IRA men were killed.

And, here I thought the concept of Berlin Walls was an obsolete one! I see nothing good about the concept. Reminds me of living in some sort of cold war era prison world/police state. Aren't we suppossed to be teaching the world something about freedom, instead of how to build more walls? Sacrificing freedom in exchange for security is pointless, when the occupation's presence claims to be there to let freedom ring.

Valor, no, a 'Berlin Wall' is what you might build to stop freedom-loving Mexicans from entering the USA

Gen Petraeus has just told The Times that the level of violence in Basra City, in recent months, has declined significantly.He also referred back to his testimony before Congress, in which he praised the British.He said of counter-insurgency "you reconcile with your enemies, not your friends". He noted that he had spoken to Gen Lamb, our former commander of Special Forces,who had said that he had talked over the table with former IRA members who had been , as he put it, "waving [explosive] pipes at our lads just a few weeks before". "We found that instructive" said Gen Petraeus.

Petraeus

That (the talking to enemies rather than the wall-building, I mean) gives a different perspective of the surge - neither the "we're kicking ass" view that Bush, for example, seems to have of it, nor the "temporarily keeping a lid on things for domestic political purposes" that despicable lefties like myself have.

It suggests (maybe) an attempt to put together something that might be longer lasting - political strategy rather than military tactic. For it to really work, though, the US is going to have to talk with Iran and Syria, too, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

It suggests (maybe) an attempt to put together something that might be longer lasting - political strategy rather than military tactic. For it to really work, though, the US is going to have to talk with Iran and Syria, too, isn't it?

It may be happening, on the sly, but who knows ? The Administration ain't never going to talk with terrorists,the axis of evil etc but its diplomats might be finding a way.Otherwise you'll just have to wait for the election of a President who understands the meaning and practice of diplomacy and that it is not against God's law to talk with enemies and potential enemies. Who could that be? Any ideas?

'Nearly two million Iraqis have become refugees in their own land in the past year, redrawing the ethnic and sectarian map of Baghdad and other cities, a report by the Iraqi Red Crescent said yesterday.

In Baghdad alone, nearly a million people have fled their homes.

Last month saw the sharpest rise so far in the numbers of Iraqis forced to abandon their homes - 71.1%.

The forced migration raises questions about claims from the Bush administration that the civilian protection plan at the core of its war strategy is making Iraq safer for Iraqis...' Refugees in their own land

I mentioned a couple of posts back that the Iraqi government action against Blackwater was good news - a sign of return to normality. Maybe we should scratch that:

'The US and Iraqi governments were yesterday planning to announce a joint investigation into Sunday's shooting of eight civilians in Baghdad that led to the suspension of the private American security firm Blackwater.

The inquiry offers a face-saving way out of an awkward standoff between the two governments. The US, which heavily relies on Blackwater for protection of its diplomatic staff and other western workers, was forced for a second day in a row to order all state department employees not to venture outside the relative safety of Baghdad's fortified green zone other than by helicopter...' Joint inquiry could resolve Blackwater standoff

'...the “democratically elected government” of “liberated” Iraq does not explicitly have the legal power to expel Blackwater USA from its land or hold any of the 50,000 private contractor troops that the U.S. government has brought to Iraq accountable for their deadly actions.

Were there even the faintest trace of Iraqi independence rising from the ashes of this failed American imperialist venture, Blackwater would have to fold its tents and go...' Checkbook Imperialism

Come to think of it, why the siege conditions in the Green Zone, if the surge is working as we've been told? Scotty, you couldn't have misheard those soldiers who said that streets that had been unsafe a month ago were open to people, could you? They didn't actually say 'open to be helicoptered over', did they?

Or did they mean just a few streets, and only to certain people? I wish you could overcome your hesitancy about giving specifics.

'...During the ensuing week, as Crocker and Petraeus told Congress that the surge of more U.S. troops to Iraq was beginning to work and President Bush gave a televised address in which he said "ordinary life was beginning to return" to Baghdad, Blackwater security guards shot at least 43 people on crowded Baghdad streets. At least 16 of those people died...' www.mcclatchydc.com

US accused of killing women and children in Baghdad raid

Two Different Accounts of Deadly Airstrike in Baghdad

Firing on the city from helicopters surely isn't a sign that the surge is working, and things are returning to normal in Baghdad, is it?

Meanwhile, in the relatively peaceful North, where a surge wasn't needed: 'Kurd attack' kills 12 in Turkey

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
I'll be deleting Charles's post above soon...

Why? If I'm reading the post you're referring to, I feel it to be pertinent to the discussion. And where does it state in the rules that a post must contain links or citations?

On topic now, didn't I just hear that that unknown al qaida leader in Irag who was just killed was pleading for help because, in his words, "the surge is working"? I'll go try to find the story.

Kendor is referring to a now-deleted post that purported to be a real news article, but obviously wasn't. I deleted that post, my post saying that I was going to delete it, and Charles' response to that.

Kendor, fake news doesn't belong in here. I'm sure there are sites on which someone can post fake news and have it accepted. AnswerPool is not one of those sites.

Please read AnswerPool's rules regarding giving credit to copyrighted sources. That particular section was in place long before I became the owner of the site. I am not the only member who has posted about someone not giving proper credit to a source, not is Charles the first person to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Kendor is referring to a now-deleted post that purported to be a real news article, but obviously wasn't. I deleted that post, my post saying that I was going to delete it, and Charles' response to that.

DorianGreyed is referring to Kendor who was referring to a now-deleted post that was satire. She didn't delete it immediately, because she felt it ought to stay on her site with her warning for 2 days. Why she had to warn me and leave it there for 2 days I surly don't know.

quote:

Kendor, fake news doesn't belong in here. I'm sure there are sites on which someone can post fake news and have it accepted. AnswerPool is not one of those sites.

Again, it was satire, but I understand, you be the owner, my bad. LMAO

quote:

Please read AnswerPool's rules regarding giving credit to copyrighted sources.

What does this matter, the man's name who wrote it was attached. Like you did, anyone that knows how to google can find the story. So you be wrong, credit was given.

quote:

That particular section was in place long before I became the owner of the site. I am not the only member who has posted about someone not giving proper credit to a source, not is Charles the first person to do so.

What exactly does what went on when someone else owned the site have to do with anything. Are you saying it is there fault, or are you just attempting to shift blame?

PS: It is also evident that in the past 30 days you have signed on to your site with 57 different new screen names in an effort to get this site going. Just figued I would let you know that I know what you did.

PSS: I guess you want a link to what I just said? www.deadsite.com LMMFAO

I guess all these posts will be deleted, too, but for anyone interested, there's a link to the article in the deleted post on this thread, about withdrawal from Iraq, where I'm sure it is pertinent.

Kendor, why do you think the piece is pertinent to the surge? Charles, what point were you trying to make? The piece makes fun of the Democratic front-runners for demanding that Bush withdraw troops now, while themselves refusing to commit to a full withdrawal within five years.

Does that suggest they think the surge is working, or not working? How's it linked to the surge, exactly?

And are the Democratic front-runners actually demanding Bush do something now that they wouldn't do if they were in his shoes? As Bush himself is going to withdraw troops now, and also refuses to say what might happen over the next five years, what's the point of the 'joke'? Isn't it just a dumb confusion over 'withdrawal' and 'full withdrawal'? The very idea of 'surge' includes withdrawal at some point - otherwise it's 'permanent reinforcement'.

Kendor, that story:

'Ground forces recovered a handwritten note at the site that was believed to have been written by Tunisi, Anderson said, displaying a slide with photographs of the note.

"The key points in this hand-written note include, he's surrounded, communications have been cut and he's desperate for help," he said.

"What I make of that is that we're having great success in isolating these pockets," Anderson said...' A senior Al-Qaeda leader killed in Iraq

There's no doubt that the surge has had some successes, in some areas, and particularly against what groups there are claiming affiliation to al Qaeda.

But is the surge as a whole working? If so, why are there still thousands of refugees leaving their homes, or leaving Iraq, every day? Shouldn't they be heading home?

And, looking at those news reports above, is Baghdad really getting safer?

DG, my bad. I thought it was real.

NNN, maybe I misunderstood the CNN anchor I was watching, in which she indicated, or so I thought, that the note actually had Tunisi saying, "the surge is working."

If his communications were cut, how would he know - except in his "isolated pocket" - how the surge was going?

Not a problem, Kendor. Very few of us would post fake news and try to pass it off as real. While we don't all agree on things, we do accept each others' new reports as genuine, albeit sometimes slanted and incomplete. Allowing fake news to be posted as real news would be detrimental to what these forums are about.


"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." ~ Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Iraq violent death rates 'plunge'

Children return to school in Iraq

From that last link - 'The Iraqi Red Crescent estimates that across Iraq, almost a million children moved home between March last year and August this year. Much of that movement was in and around Baghdad.'

An opinion:

'The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he's talking about it or not. When he first announced the Surge in January, he described it as a way to bring the parties together. He's not saying that any more. I think he now understands that ethnic cleansing is what is going to happen. You're going to have a Kurdistan. You're going to have a Sunni area that we're going to have to support forever. And you're going to have the Shiites in the South.' www.spiegel.de