Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[Ivan Seeking]

Wtf did the Iraqi people ever do to the US?

If you read my signature you will see why this happened: The Bush admin managed to convince many Americans that Saddam was involved with the 911attack; that he was building an arsenal of weapons for more attacks in the future. So on flimsy evidence that was misrepresented, we went charging into Iraq like Rambo on a great white horse, and swiftly defeated the enemy, but with no plan for what happens after Saddam was defeated - no plan for peace.

Many of our best military minds argued that we needed far more troops to ensure that we could bring peace after we attacked, but in his supreme arrogance, Bush [and his team] refused to listen. This is why Iraq is such a disaster now. And, of course, Saddam didn't have the alleged weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify the invasion to, not only the US, but to the rest of the world as well.

There are also many Americans who believe that everything said here is a lie, that we [the people] have never been told the real motives for the invasion, and that like the Iraqi people caught in this, the American people are victims of Bush and his adminstration as well; especially those who have died while fighting Bush's war. We have spent half a trillion dollars on this war already - that's almost a $2000 bill for each and every American - and many billions of that went to a company that our Vice President Cheney once led - Halliburton.

 

[arunbg]

Yes, it is definitely catch 22 here and there seems to be no likely end to it.

There can be very little hope harboured about the success of a democratic government there, simply because the notion of trust is lost. I believe many people there still see the US invasions a new form of colonialism, and who can blame them? Imagine if all this had happened in your country, would you have seen it anyway different?

First you are told that your country is being invaded for allegedly possessing WMD and then you are told that it was all a big mistake, then your country's long time leader(however evil) is executed, after a ruling from a court that was anything but impartial. No stable government in place, constant airstrikes, terrorist attacks, social fabric destroyed. All you hear are promises.

The US policy makers have erred time and again, in restoring a stable governmental and administrative system in the country. They need to start rebuilding goodwill on a major scale, and developing infrastrucure and providing for basic necessities certainly go a long way more than cruising around in battle tanks wearing sunglasses.

 

[Neutralino]

I guess the only way is to pack out as soon as possible but that's not to say they're quitting. Let its neighbours, say Iran, help out and then provide whatever help they need to do so. More of an indirect rebuilding.

 

[Smurf]

You're all extremely helpful. We can't stay and we can't leave! There is nothing we can do, every course leads to disaster. I guess that resolves us of responsibility for having to make a decision. Lucky!

 

[Andre]

How to put this politically correct.

It should be emphazised that "we" is the UN with a mandate. We, as in all the countries of the UN, are all interested in stability and peace. The USA has done more than its fair share in an attempt to accomplish that. It's just about time that other nations take over that responsibility. Especially those that are familiar with the language, culture and population.

 

[arunbg]

It should be emphazised that "we" is the UN with a mandate. We, as in all the countries of the UN, are all interested in stability and peace. The USA has done more than its fair share in an attempt to accomplish that. It's just about time that other nations take over that responsibility. Especially those that are familiar with the language, culture and population.

Agreed, but nothing seems to be heading in that direction from the part of either the US or other countries, especially those in the middle-east. The US is not ready to back out nor are other countries willing to chip in.

You're all extremely helpful. We can't stay and we can't leave! There is nothing we can do, every course leads to disaster. I guess that resolves us of responsibility for having to make a decision. Lucky!

I don't think this was the intent of the posts. They were more like pondering the question how long should we stay before we leave.

 

[baywax]

If you read my signature you will see why this happened: The Bush admin managed to convince many Americans that Saddam was involved with the 911attack; that he was building an arsenal of weapons for more attacks in the future. So on flimsy evidence that was misrepresented, we went charging into Iraq like Rambo on a great white horse, and swiftly defeated the enemy, but with no plan for what happens after Saddam was defeated - no plan for peace.

Many of our best military minds argued that we needed far more troops to ensure that we could bring peace after we attacked, but in his supreme arrogance, Bush [and his team] refused to listen. This is why Iraq is such a disaster now. And, of course, Saddam didn't have the alleged weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify the invasion to, not only the US, but to the rest of the world as well.

There are also many Americans who believe that everything said here is a lie, that we [the people] have never been told the real motives for the invasion, and that like the Iraqi people caught in this, the American people are victims of Bush and his adminstration as well; especially those who have died while fighting Bush's war. We have spent half a trillion dollars on this war already - that's almost a $2000 bill for each and every American - and many billions of that went to a company that our Vice President Cheney once led - Halliburton.

I still don't get it. Can you tell this to the children who are suddenly, right now, missing legs, arms, mothers and fathers, uncles and ultimately missing lives of their own to the high tech gadgets and well trained men and women of the US?

The reasons for being in Iraq are similar to any national security issue. If the military has no oil, its pretty well useless unless they have reliable alternate fuel (cells). Iraq really doesn't account for more than a small percentage of world oil supplies. But it is one of a very few "available" oil supplies to a once very loved and admired country like the United States. And, there's all this other "contract" work to be had there "rebuilding" what the govt. blows up or loots.

Another concern is about the history and pre-history that's being wiped out along with the traditions of the place. These are evidences of every human's past and without them many will have no alternative but to turn to "old time religion" which is only about 1300 or so years old as opposed to 9,000 or even 15,000 year old wisdoms, stories, artifacts and histories.

If we were in there to "liberate" the women from their Burkas and the tyranny of male dominance then we would be in India, Pakistan, Dubai, Egypt, and every other country that has a bit of Islamic rule.

If we were in Iraq because they have a tendency to trash neighboring countries like Kuwait then we'd be in just about every country in the world fighting for "freedom" and "no bullying"... including in the US.

[9/11 conspiracy theory reference deleted]

I think a great big gigantic humungous dose of apology, justice and humanitarianism might work towards calming relations with the Iraqi people. But, that's a western tradition. The Iraqi/middle eastern tradition/solution may be a little harder for us to swallow.

 

[Plastic Photon]

Do what you do best...

I think it comes down to power: money, people and mechanization (proximity). The Oil for Food program stank of oversaturation in the market of very few people with too much money who were not American citizens or did not have heavily favoured American interest (mechanization).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It should be emphazised that "we" is the UN with a mandate. We, as in all the countries of the UN, are all interested in stability and peace. The USA has done more than its fair share in an attempt to accomplish that. It's just about time that other nations take over that responsibility. Especially those that are familiar with the language, culture and population.

Barack Obama [2008 presidential candidate] makes much the same argument - this is not a problem that the US alone can solve. Unfortunately, there are many fans of the pottery rule - we broke it so we own it. And Bush doesn't believe in diplomacy.

Our best hope for peace may be to elect Barack Obama.

He has some interesting fans:

 

[drankin]

The way I understand it is that we originally went into Iraq to take down Sadam. Not because of 9/11. We went into Afganistan to find Bin Laden who was key in the 9/11 attack. I think you are confusing these separate campaigns. There are overlapping aspects now that elements of Al Queda are attempting gain influence in Iraq but they were originally specific objectives.

Edit by Ivan: I deleted the previous post which this quoted. We can't get into any 911 conspiracy discussions; i.e. that anything other than airplanes took down the buildings.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But the Bush admin promoted the idea that Saddam was directly linked to 911 in order to gain support for the war.

 

[russ_watters]

It is a difficult uphill battle to argue that that was as big factor as you are implying. His initial speech on the matter, which outlined the threat, neither asserted nor implied a direct or even indirect link between Iraq and 9/11: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Bush certainly played the PR game well, but it is important to remember that the UNSC was in unanamous agreement at the time that Iraq posed a threat to peace and stability.

 

[baywax]

Edit by Ivan: I deleted the previous post which this quoted. We can't get into any 911 conspiracy discussions; i.e. that anything other than airplanes took down the buildings.

My apologies. CSI I am not.

I reiterate my position which is that we shower the whole area with large amounts of apology, do our best to mitigate the damage already inflicted, and remember that we would do pretty much the same thing under the curcumstances the Iraqi people are experiencing this moment. I know its a different take on "shock and awe" but it hurts a lot fewer people and may even cost less money, though I doubt it.:uhh:

 

[drankin]

Personally, with all the anti-Americanism that I see, I'm all for the US becoming a bit more isolated. I would be very supportive of a president who was for shutting down our own borders, bringing in our military to a significant extent, and minding our own for awhile. Being available for support when asked.

 

[Plastic Photon]

Personally, with all the anti-Americanism that I see, I'm all for the US becoming a bit more isolated. I would be very supportive of a president who was for shutting down our own borders, bringing in our military to a significant extent, and minding our own for awhile. Being available for support when asked.

Are you saying you would prefer a direct military rule with no foreign trade security?

 

[baywax]

Personally, with all the anti-Americanism that I see, I'm all for the US becoming a bit more isolated. I would be very supportive of a president who was for shutting down our own borders, bringing in our military to a significant extent, and minding our own for awhile. Being available for support when asked.

Anti-American? I beg to differ. I believe that most of what has taken place under the current admin is anti-American including the actions that go directly against the American Constitution which was written by some very smart cookies who were also, by the way, known as "insurgents" by an English Monarchy.

insurgent |in?s?rj?nt| adjective [ attrib. ]

rising in active revolt : alleged links with insurgent groups.
• of or relating to rebels
noun (usu. insurgents) a rebel or revolutionary

Oxford American Dictionary

I still say let these people be. If we're nice enough to them they might sell us some oil. If they want to run their country under religious rule so be it. If they want to use camels instead of helicopters its none of our business. If they don't educate their children the same way we do its still none of our business. If we provide such a shining example of civil union and prosperity maybe they'll aspire to be like us. In the mean time the example we're setting is really good for no one whatsoever.

 

[drankin]

Anti-American? I beg to differ. I believe that most of what has taken place under the current admin is anti-american including the actions that go directly against the American Constitution which was written by some very smart cookies who were also, by the way, known as "insurgents" by an English Monarchy.



Oxford American Dictionary

Uh, ok. I didn't mean to start a tangent. I was trying to relate it to the OP in a general sense. Not create a Constitutional/American history discussion. Anti-Americanism abroad.

 

[russ_watters]

I still say let these people be. If we're nice enough to them they might sell us some oil. If they want to run their country under religious rule so be it. If they want to use camels instead of helicopters its none of our business. If they don't educate their children the same way we do its still none of our business. If we provide such a shining example of civil union and prosperity maybe they'll aspire to be like us. In the mean time the example we're setting is really good for no one whatsoever.

One of the primary purposes/resons for existing of the UN is precisely the opposite of what you suggest.

The UN was founded partially on the concept that if one has the ability to help someone who needs help, they have the moral responsibility to do so.

I too often get frustrated by the refusal of people to accept help (the Indonesian government after the tsunami comes to mind), but if we are to have any moral authority, we can't just say f- 'em. Besides being immoral, it would not increase our international standing, but decrease it.

What the US most needs - and because of her nature (ie, a new President every 4 or 8 years) will never get - is consistency of vision.

 

[BobG]

I still say let these people be. If we're nice enough to them they might sell us some oil. If they want to run their country under religious rule so be it. If they want to use camels instead of helicopters its none of our business. If they don't educate their children the same way we do its still none of our business. If we provide such a shining example of civil union and prosperity maybe they'll aspire to be like us. In the mean time the example we're setting is really good for no one whatsoever.

Which people are you talking about and how does this relate to Iraq?

Iraq was a fairly modern, secular state under Hussein. His goal was to sell oil to the Western world - even the US if the sanctions ever ended.

The problem with Hussein was his deadly oppression of Shi'ites and Kurds - Hussein's method of preventing the current civil war from breaking out under his rule. The second problem was Hussein's tendency to get into wars with his neighbors - a long war with Iran nearly immediately followed by a short war with Kuwait.

I don't think ending oppression of some other country's residents should be a primary goal of the US government - the US government exists to serve US residents. Preventing wars in a region critically important to US economic health should be a primary goal of the US government, but invasion wasn't the only means to accomplish that - in fact, invasion seems to have increased the likelihood of a major war in the Middle East rather than to decrease it.

In other words, it isn't the goal of the Bush administration that's so bad - it's that they suck so bad at what they do.

 

[edward]

Sometimes I think that our leaders actually want the various factions in Iraq to keep fighting each other. If they all did band toghether they would be a formidable force for us to deal with.

 

[turbo]

In other words, it isn't the goal of the Bush administration that's so bad - it's that they suck so bad at what they do.

I would have to respectfully disagree on this point. They have not honestly stated a single goal in pushing the war against the Iraqi people. If you think that they wanted to strike a blow at terrorism, destroy WMDs, free the Iraqi people and bring them democracy, you give the Bushies way too much credit. They were set on starting a war that would inevitably enrich contractors like Halliburton/KBR, the oil companies and defense contractors. Mission Accomplished. They have achieved their goals and will walk away from this grinning and rubbing their hands together, leaving the next administration to try to fix things. We cannot improve things in Iraq without diplomacy, compromises, and lots of hard work - methods that the Bushies refuse to consider.

With politicians, it's always best to watch what they do, not what they say, and always follow the money.

 

[edward]

It seerms that nearly every military action that is reported on in Iraq involves al qaeda. Headlines and newscasters proclaim: al qaeda attack, suspected al qaeda attack, al qaeda related, suspected al qaeda related, al qaeda influenced ect.

Is it really that bad or are we being fed what we the government wants us to hear. al qaeda is only one of many factions fighting in Iraq.

Buried deep within a recent AP report was, perhaps, the single most important piece of information ever to make its way out of Iraq and into American media. Despite the Bush administration and Republicans' constant warning that withdrawing from Iraq would result in al-Qaeda "following us home"; the fact is that there aren't very many so-called al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq.

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1457

Admittedly I don't know who "The Progressive Daily Beacon" is, but I have read similar articles from other sources, one being an AP story in my local newspaper.

 

[turbo]

Al qaeda is a convenient bogeyman that the administration and the press trots out daily to "prove" that all the people we're killing are evil terrorists. That's crap, and they know it. Every time the US blows up a building the dead people are "al qaeda members" or at least "suspected alqaeda members". This despite the fact that our soldiers are fighting in a civil war in which it's pretty hard to even tell who is who. We are being fed crap by military-censored news releases.

 

[Plastic Photon]

THe insurgents are fighting for transit fees on oil pipelines. The US needs to pick one faction over the other and reduce the violence.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraq was a fairly modern, secular state under Hussein. His goal was to sell oil to the Western world - even the US if the sanctions ever ended.

The problem with Hussein was his deadly oppression of Shi'ites and Kurds - Hussein's method of preventing the current civil war from breaking out under his rule. The second problem was Hussein's tendency to get into wars with his neighbors - a long war with Iran nearly immediately followed by a short war with Kuwait.

I don't think ending oppression of some other country's residents should be a primary goal of the US government - the US government exists to serve US residents. Preventing wars in a region critically important to US economic health should be a primary goal of the US government, but invasion wasn't the only means to accomplish that - in fact, invasion seems to have increased the likelihood of a major war in the Middle East rather than to decrease it.

In other words, it isn't the goal of the Bush administration that's so bad - it's that they suck so bad at what they do.

This is a fairly reasonable assessment.

With respect to the US role in Iraq, while the role of the US government is to serve the people (US citizens), it is supposed to represent the interests of the US population to the rest of the world. Now then, what does that mean in terms of the US involvement in other countries? Certainly dealing with whatever governments exist in those countries in terms of establishing trade and economic ties.

But what if a country is hostile to the US and a potential threat, as was alleged in the case if Iraq. Does the US, or any country for that matter, have the 'right' to pre-emptively invade another country, and in all likelihood, killing 10's of thousands of innocent civilians, or does the US simply isolate that country with support from other nations?

It would appear however, that the current US situation in Iraq is remeniscent of the imperial policies of England and other European countries in Africa, Middle East and Asia, e.g. the British colonization/occupation of India, Palestine, even Iraq, Hong Kong, . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_colonization_of_Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Africa#The_Scramble_for_Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_imperialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_Empire_1897.jpg

I think that some members of the Bush administration suffered from the same arrogance as did those who gave rise to the British Empire.

 

[BobG]

I would have to respectfully disagree on this point. They have not honestly stated a single goal in pushing the war against the Iraqi people. If you think that they wanted to strike a blow at terrorism, destroy WMDs, free the Iraqi people and bring them democracy, you give the Bushies way too much credit. They were set on starting a war that would inevitably enrich contractors like Halliburton/KBR, the oil companies and defense contractors. Mission Accomplished. They have achieved their goals and will walk away from this grinning and rubbing their hands together, leaving the next administration to try to fix things. We cannot improve things in Iraq without diplomacy, compromises, and lots of hard work - methods that the Bushies refuse to consider.

With politicians, it's always best to watch what they do, not what they say, and always follow the money.

Maybe both?

One thing baywax did hit on was "If we're nice enough to them they might sell us some oil." Historically, that hasn't been considered a great option by the US - at least not the idea of a foreign government using oil sales as a weapon in that country's foreign policy.

The US has preferred for oil sales to depend solely upon capitalism by private companies. Nationalizing the oil industry in Iran led to the US backing the Shah's takeover (which eventually led to the poor relations we have with Iran, today).

It would be naive to think the benefits of private companies controlling the oil in Iraq wasn't considered. In fact, privately owned businesses, especially multi-national businesses, tend to temper extreme policies. Wars are bad for business if it's your factories and buildings that are getting bombed. It's the "no two countries with a MacDonalds have ever fought a war against each other" truism.

Once again, it isn't the end state that's bad. It's ignoring the problems that similar policies have caused in the past and thinking a democratic government and capitalist market could be installed on top of a country rather built from the ground up by the country itself. Given Iraq's history and culture, the idea of a capitalist market in Iraq is less outrageous than thinking the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds could form a unified democratic government, but we botched even that part by ignoring what already existed in Iraq and trying to install our own style of market economy.

Even if you're right about the motives - personal profit vs the effect on stability in the region - being corrupt effectively would be better than the current situation. Look at the people that were given important roles in Iraq immediately after "Mission Accomplished": Thomas Foley (Bush friend with no diplomatic experience) an Michael Fleischer (Ari Fleischer's brother with no diplomatic experience) in charge of private sector development, Jay Hallen (24-year-old Young Republican from the Heritage Foundation) in charge of launching a new Iraqi stock exchange to replace Iraq's version, Scott Erwin (21-year-old Cheney intern whose favorite job prior to this was driving an ice cream truck) managing budget and finances for Iraq's domestic security force. Competence didn't matter - ideological loyalty did.

If you can't put together a team capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, it doesn't matter much what your goals are.

 

[turbo]

If you can't put together a team capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, it doesn't matter much what your goals are.

You're absolutely right on this count. Unfortunately, the Bushies have ruined the careers of intelligence officers, diplomats and senior military officers that dared to point out the flaws in their "goals" and the lack of planning and resources dedicated to dealing with the inevitable problems that would arise from destroying the infrastructure of one of the most modernized, progressive Arab nations. The damage that this partisan neoconservative cabal has done to our government, our military, and our intelligence agencies will not be repaired for many years. In practical terms, the people left at the top levels of these entities are people who will do what they are told without question, or people who fully agree with the "goals" of the neoconservatives.

You might not have liked Saddam (and there was a lot not to like about him), but until he invaded Kuwait, he was Reagan/Bush's bully-boy in the ME, and they used US taxpayer money to keep him in power, well-armed, and well-supplied with intelligence. The Saudi royal family were very happy about this, since he was ruthless enough to prevent the development of an Islamic theocracy north of them that could threaten their rule. The Saudis enjoyed the "insulation" provided by Saddam, even if they were rankled by the fact that women in Iraq were allowed to wear modern dress, hold positions of responsibility, and otherwise participate in society to an extent not allowed by most Islamic states.

 

[edward]

In March The Iraq defence ministry decided to purchase U.S. made M16's and M4's.
The Iraqi army should be in the middle of the switch from the AK's which we had previously given them.

I would suspect that this is why we are hearing reports that Iraqi forces are low on ammunition. We, or someone, is having to supply them with ammunition of different calibers until the transition is completed.

Great deal for U.S arms makers, though I don't know where the Iraqi Defence Ministry came up with that kind of money.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9083510

 

[Astronuc]

There has been an increase in violence, which has paralleled the troop 'surge'. The US military indicated that it would get worse, before it would get better - assuming it can get better.

At Least 12 Die in Suicide Bombing at Baghdad Hotel
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11365137
Hear NPR's Rachel Martin

NPR.org, June 25, 2007 · Four prominent Sunni tribal leaders were killed Monday when a suicide bomber blew himself up in the lobby of a Baghdad hotel where they were meeting with government officials.

The sheiks were associated with the Anbar Salvation Council, which has allied itself with the U.S. to help drive al-Qaida extremists out of Iraq's Anbar province.

At least eight other people were also killed after the bomber went through three security checkpoints, then detonated a belt packed with explosives at the Mansour Hotel, police said.

The suicide bomber entered the hotel lobby at about noon when the hotel was busy with guests and members of news media organizations that are headquartered in the highrise building. A police officer, who is based at the hotel and asked not to be identified, said the bomber walked up to the group of sheiks and detonated the explosives.

The officer identified the dead tribal leaders as former Anbar governor Fassal al-Guood, sheik of the al-Bu Nimir tribe; Sheik Abdul-Azizi al-Fahdawi of the Fahad tribe; and Sheik Tariq Saleh al-Assafi and Col. Fadil al-Nimrawi, both of the al-Bu Nimr tribe.

Gen. Aziz al-Yassiri, a Defense Ministry adviser, also was killed in the hotel attack, a ministry official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Al Qaida is loosing key support, but the Sunni and Shii are still divided.

Senior GOP Senator Calls for Iraq Draw Down
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11382157

NPR.org, June 26, 2007 · Sen. Richard Lugar, one of the Senate's most senior Republicans and a respected voice on foreign affairs, has broken ranks with the Bush administration over the issue of Iraq, calling for the U.S. to downsize its military role there.

Lugar (R-IN) said the White House strategy on Iraq is not working and that the U.S. should draw down its troop commitment there.

The unusually blunt assessment comes as a surprise. Most Republicans have said they were willing to wait until September to see if Bush's recently ordered troop buildup in Iraq was working.

 

[baywax]

Which people are you talking about and how does this relate to Iraq?

Iraq was a fairly modern, secular state under Hussein. His goal was to sell oil to the Western world - even the US if the sanctions ever ended.

The problem with Hussein was his deadly oppression of Shi'ites and Kurds - Hussein's method of preventing the current civil war from breaking out under his rule. The second problem was Hussein's tendency to get into wars with his neighbors - a long war with Iran nearly immediately followed by a short war with Kuwait.

I don't think ending oppression of some other country's residents should be a primary goal of the US government - the US government exists to serve US residents. Preventing wars in a region critically important to US economic health should be a primary goal of the US government, but invasion wasn't the only means to accomplish that - in fact, invasion seems to have increased the likelihood of a major war in the Middle East rather than to decrease it.

In other words, it isn't the goal of the Bush administration that's so bad - it's that they suck so bad at what they do.

I think helping people when they ask for help is the best way to avoid looking like an aggressor. However, it is sometimes the case where a leader is grafted into a state who will then be instructed to "ask for help".

Also, you're saying Saddam was a problem. Was that because he had instructions to be a problem? Was he instructed to go after Iran after the religious coup and hostage taking that took place there?

I heard an interview with a Kurdish woman who used to live where the alleged Iraqi gas attacks allegedly killed 5000 people. She noted that there were never 5000 people in her district. More like about 600.

And, furthermore, do problems in the middle east translate to problems in the US other than the fact that they may threaten the flow of oil from that region? If the US was self-sufficient in terms of energy, water, food etc... would we be in Iraq right now... would we be in Afganistan where Taliban forces are trying to stop an oil pipeline making it through Afganistan to a Pakistan port from Kazakhstan? Or are we in the middle east because we really want these people to be free, democratic and prosperous?

Desperation due to lack of resources does not a pretty nation make. Just look at how Japan behaved approx. 60 years ago.

 

[Astronuc]

G.O.P. Support for Iraq Policy Erodes Further
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/washington/06cong.html

WASHINGTON, July 5 — Support among Republicans for President Bush’s Iraq policy eroded further on Thursday as another senior lawmaker, Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, broke with the White House just as Congressional Democrats prepared to renew their challenge to the war.

“We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” said Mr. Domenici, a six-term senator who has been a steadfast supporter of the president.

Thus Mr. Domenici joined a growing number of Republican voices in opposition to the war just as Senate Democratic leaders are readying plans to put the political and policy focus back on Iraq next week.

The Democrats intend to use a Pentagon policy measure to force votes on proposals limiting spending on the conflict and setting a timetable for withdrawing most troops by next year — an idea Mr. Bush has already vetoed.

Mr. Domenici made it clear Thursday that he did not support such measures either, saying, “I’m not calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops, but I am calling for a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to continuing home.”

Still, within hours after Mr. Domenici spoke to reporters in a conference call, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, called on him to join Democrats and like-minded Republicans to bring the war to a close.

. . . .

But now there seems to be some signs of progress in Iraq, although the future seems uncertain. It is a shame to think that the country may have to go through more blood-letting to get to some point of stability, or peace, assuming that is even possible.

G.I.’s Forge Sunni Tie in Bid to Squeeze Militants
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/world/middleeast/06military.html

BAQUBA, Iraq, June 30 — Capt. Ben Richards had been battling insurgents from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia for three weeks when he received an unexpected visitor.

Abu Ali walked into the Americans’ battle-scarred combat outpost with an unusual proposal: the community leader was worried about the insurgents, and wanted the soldiers’ help in taking them on.

The April 7 meeting was the beginning of a new alliance and, American commanders hope, a portent of what is to come in the bitterly contested Diyala Province.

Using his Iraqi partners to pick out the insurgents and uncover the bombs they had seeded along the cratered roads, Captain Richards’s soldiers soon apprehended more than 100 militants, including several low-level emirs. The Iraqis called themselves the Local Committee; Captain Richards dubbed them the Kit Carson scouts.

“It is the only way that we can keep Al Qaeda out,” said Captain Richards, who operates from a former Iraqi police station in the Buhritz sector of the city that still bears the sooty streaks from the day militants set it aflame last year.

. . . .

It's a pity that such alliances were not developed 3-4 years ago. Had the Iraqi army and low level Baath Party members been brought into the process, and had Sunnis and Shii been brought into the process together (I'm not sure if that was possible then), the outcome could have been very different, with far fewer US soldiers and innocent Iraqis killed.

 

[Astronuc]

I tried to warn Bush against Iraq war: Powell
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22040231-31477,00.html

FORMER US secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2 1/2 hours vainly trying to persuade President George W. Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today's conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
"I tried to avoid this war," Mr Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. "I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers."

Mr Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war.

"The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms. It's not going to be pretty to watch, but I don't know any way to avoid it. It is happening now," he said.

He added: "It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States."

The signs are that the views of Mr Powell and other critics of the war are finally being heard in the Pentagon, if not yet in the White House.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates is drawing up plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq in anticipation that General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, will not be able to deliver an upbeat progress report in September on the US troop surge.

. . . .

Apparently he didn't try hard enough. Perhaps trying to use reason was a mistake, as well as an exercise in futility.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraq PM: Country Can Manage Without U.S.
BAGHDAD (AP), Sat Jul 14, 09:52 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

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 congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

On Friday, the Pentagon 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 batallions 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.

This doesn't sound like progress.

He [Al-Suneid] said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki' government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

"This embarrasses the government in front of its people," he said, calling the civilian deaths a "human rights violation."

Seems like a no-win situation for Bush and the US.

Meanwhile prominent republican Senators, Warner and Lugar, are joining others in opposing Bush's current strategy.


This will probably come to a climax when the spending bills for the next fiscal year are finalized and Bush has to sign them.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqis Say Daily Life Devoid of Progress
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11945369
by Renee Montagne and Jamie Tarabay

Morning Edition, July 13, 2007 · Four years after the U.S. invasion, many Iraqis still lack jobs, as well as basic services such as electricity. People blame politicians, whom they say are out of touch with their needs.

And Bush is adamant about not changing his failed policy.

 

[Mallignamius]

I wish someone would invade the U.S. and rescue us from the Bush Administration. Then maybe Iraq's situation would improve.