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

[Ivan Seeking]

From Sunday, the Jan 7th edition of Meet the Press, I thought this debate between Senators Biden and Graham was quite good. I believe that each man speaks from the heart, and I think they do a pretty good job of sketching out where we stand today and the options that are on the table. Personally, if I were President, I don't know what I would do. From a military POV I tend to think that the only hope of controlling the situation would be to impose a draft here and send another 350,000 troops to Iraq; perhaps double or more the number of troops in Afghanistan. On the political side, I think we should pull out and force the Iraqis to take control, but I don't know how that can happen without creating a bigger disaster in our wake. Either way, in the end only a political solution can stop the bloodshed. Can the country of Iraq be salvaged? Should it be salvaged? At this point I have my doubts.

Biden debates Graham: 1/7/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Oh yes, going into our seventh year of Bush, the genuine [factual], sincere, heartfelt debate here was most refreshing. For the most part, I don't think these guys were spinning anything. I think they are speaking the truth as they see it. This is what politics should sound like.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, kudos to Senator Biden for putting the Constitution ahead of his political views. We need much more of this.

 

[Astronuc]

Can the country of Iraq be salvaged?

What is meant by salvaged? The 2 groups Sunni and Shii are far apart, and I doubt they will see eye to eye. Will the Shii allow Sunni to participate politically? Will Sunni accept a minority status? Will both sides let bygones be bygones?

I heard Lindsey Graham mention that the US has to win in Iraq and not permit a 'full scale' civil war, which there already seems to be except for the magnitude or rate of homicide, and not permit the situation to evolve into a regional conflict, or haunt the US for decades to come. However, the botched recovery of Iraq will already haunt the US for decades to come. The longer the US remains in Iraq, the stronger the anti-US sentiments.


Petraeus at Center of Military Shift
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6734061

Weekend Edition Saturday, January 6, 2007 · Changes are under way in the U.S. military hierarchy, with a new leader on the ground in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. David Petraeus -- and a likely increase in troop strength that not all U.S. military leaders support.

This good news. Petraeus did a good job with the 101st.

Leader of the Fabled 101st to Command in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6730560

All Things Considered, January 5, 2007 · Lt. Gen. David Petraeus is soon expected to take over command of all U.S. forces in Iraq. If he is confirmed by the Senate, this will be his third tour of duty in the country. He commanded the 101st Airborne during the invasion in 2003 and oversaw the northern part of the country immediately after the invasion. He returned to Iraq in 2004 to oversee the training of Iraqi security forces.

The son of a Dutch sea captain, Petraeus began his military career at West Point. And he is no ordinary general. He has a Ph.D. in history from Princeton. His thesis topic: The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam.

 

[LightbulbSun]

From Sunday, the Jan 7th edition of Meet the Press, I thought this debate between Senators Biden and Graham was quite good. I believe that each man speaks from the heart, and I think they do a pretty good job of sketching out where we stand today, and the options that are on the table. Personally, if I were President, I don't know what I would do. From a military POV I tend to think that the only hope of controlling the situation would be to impose a draft here and send another 350,000 troops to Iraq; perhaps double or more the number of troops in Afghanistan. On the political side, I think we should pull out and force the Iraqis to take control, but I don't know how that can happen without creating a bigger disaster in our wake. Either way, in the end only a political solution can stop the bloodshed. Can the country of Iraq be salvaged? Should it be salvaged? At this point I have my doubts.

Biden debates Graham: 1/7/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Oh yes, going into our seventh year of Bush, the genuine [factual], sincere, heartfelt debate here was most refreshing. For the most part, I don't think these guys were spinning anything. I think they are speaking the truth as they see it. This is what politics should sound like.

What should we do with Iraq? Pull out. Who cares about national pride and all of that garbage? We're of no use being there, and sure there maybe more chaos if we leave, but it has been painfully obvious that us occupying the region hasn't done that country any good.

 

[BobG]

There's differing views even within the Republican Party: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16501666/site/newsweek/

And the military community seems to be getting tired of the war: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/ The synopsis for each year tells the short story:

2003 - Despite a year of constant combat casualties and long, grinding overseas tours, men and women in uniform strongly back President Bush and his policies in Iraq, according to a Military Times Poll.

2004 - Despite a year of ferocious combat, mounting casualties and frequent deployments, support for the war in Iraq remains overwhelming among the active-duty military, according to the 2004 Military Times Poll.

2005 - Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.

2006 - The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

Notably, the number of military members that would re-enlist/extend/re-commit to military service has run from 75%, 75%, 70%, to 66% for each of the four years. Over the last three polls, the percentage of troops deployed for Iraq/Afghanistan for over 6 months has risen from 25% in 2004 to 39% in 2005 to 45% in 2006. The 'surge' won't be accomplished by increasing troop levels - it will be accomplished by extending the tours of those already deployed and deploying the next rotation early (with the knowledge the back end of their tours will be extended if the surge is to be maintained for any length of time).

 

[BobG]

While Bush may have spoken about Iraq last night, Maliki's comments are more significant (Iraqi PM gives ultimatum to Shiite militias).

If Maliki tries to follow through, it will at least bring things to a head one way or the other quickly. I think the most likely outcome will be to prove Malicki and the Iraqi government have almost no control over their country. Malicki's 'hands-off' approach to Sadr is as much because of weakness as it is pro-Shiite sympathies and I wonder how much the Kurds care about Bagdhad. But, if the Iraqis can bring Sadr's armies under control, it does give them at least a chance of successfully governing Iraq.

If Iraq fails to follow through successfully in controlling Sadr's militias, then its probably time to realize that the US should be dealing with Sadr instead of the official Iraqi government. Maybe we could at least prevent genocide that would probably bring Saudi Arabia and Iran into Iraq. I doubt that will happen, since doing that would be conceding that everything we've done between Hussein's fall up to this point has been a complete failure. Admitting that all the invasion has accomplished is to replace one dictator with a theocratic dictator would be a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Gokul43201]

While Bush may have spoken about Iraq last night, Maliki's comments are more significant (Iraqi PM gives ultimatum to Shiite militias).

This is simply the least that al-Maliki can do. He has to play the spread very carefully. On the one hand, he has the US really pissed of at him for his appeasement of al-Sad'r. There's been dozens of Sad'rites that have been captured by US forces, only to later be released by the Iraqis. This has been annoying the US Military command for months now, but it really got to a boil last month (when many troops were killed by Sad'rites that had previously been captured and identified). They've been on al Maliki's tail about this for a while now, but it hasn't gotten anywhere. Looks like they finally upped the ante. Now al Maliki's stuck between Iraq and a hard place (stole that one), and has to play his hand very carefully. He has to keep the US (where he currently gets money and security from) happy, but not, at the same time outlaw the ("arguably", since the US has insisted that al Sad'r is nothing more than a fringe element, a 2-bit thug, and suchlike) second most popular person in Iraq (behind al Sistani). The recent ICRSS poll shows that most people from Baghdad, Najaf and al Anbar consider security their biggest concern, and they overwhelmingly blame the US for their predicament.

Two years ago, the US forced al Sadr to disband the Mahdis under the threat of a directed onslaught. It worked; al Sadr even made some kind of peace deal. But things went sour shortly after and have only gotten worse since the elections. In hindsight, it would appear that the only thing that did work was an open threat of force against the Sad'rites, and that's what's back on the table now (well, it has been, for some months now).

Malicki's 'hands-off' approach to Sadr is as much because of weakness as it is pro-Shiite sympathies and I wonder how much the Kurds care about Bagdhad. But, if the Iraqis can bring Sadr's armies under control, it does give them at least a chance of successfully governing Iraq.

It appears to be more than just a hands-off policy - at least in effect, if not blatantly in practice. Besides, al Maliki himself ordered the release of a high ranking Sad'r aide last year. That's definitely more than hands-off.

If Iraq fails to follow through successfully in controlling Sadr's militias, then its probably time to realize that the US should be dealing with Sadr instead of the official Iraqi government.

I think this unlikely. The US military has long (since last fall) crossed the Rubicon with respect to handling al Sad'r (and vice versa). They've tried to kill him (and have killed some of his aides), and he's been responsible for killing several US troops. The military hates him, and it despises the appeasers that keep letting out captured Sad'rites back onto the streets (unfortunately, these appeasers are the majority party). It would be ideologically reprehensible for the US to negotiate with this "thug".

Maybe we could at least prevent genocide that would probably bring Saudi Arabia and Iran into Iraq.

I'm not sure either of them would officially enter the fray (not that that's either necessary or smart) as long as present levels of US troops are in Iraq, even if there's a genocide of Sunnis happening...and even after the US withdraws a big chunk of troops it's "safer" to infiltrate non-uniformed militias, and bankroll mobs. But this is just semantics. The result will be more blood on both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide.

 

[Rach3]

I believe that each man speaks from the heart...

Aah, the speach coaching pays off again. Another happy constituent!

 

[Rach3]

Perhaps a partition is the smallest calamity at this point? Much like (also ex-British) Pakistan in '47. Half a million died then; we've likely already exceeded that, so it's looking like a half-reasonable option. Kill the constitution, have militia leaders meet and draw up borders, then let the whole population migrate off into two or three distinct regions (cf. Pakistan, Bangladesh). May not slow down sectarian civil war, but at least localize it to borders and disputed regions.

 

[Rach3]

...or, we can just follow along with mainstream American public thinking, which has been doing a heckuva job this far! Two camps: Rice-allies say increase troops by 10% to "quell the violence", Murtha-lookalikes say withdraw now and let the Iraqi process work itself out. I'm not sure which is more pathetically naive...

But of course by the standards of discussion today, my metrics are all wrong. The hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced, twenty million living in abject terror, who talks about those nowadays? Presumably there are other things more relevant to policymaking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Aah, the speach coaching pays off again. Another happy constituent!

Of course, this would be your position no matter what they said. I don't see anyone whitewashing this issue any longer.

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps a partition is the smallest calamity at this point? Much like (also ex-British) Pakistan in '47. . . . May not slow down sectarian civil war, but at least localize it to borders and disputed regions.

Then again, it may not remain localized. There is a big difference between 1947 and 2007. We now have mobility and access to technology unavailable then. Sixty years ago, regional conflicts in some areas would likely stay regional - not to anymore. Evenso, can we allow regional conflicts to continue.

...or, we can just follow along with mainstream American public thinking, which has been doing a heckuva job this far! Two camps: . . . .

But of course by the standards of discussion today, my metrics are all wrong. The hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced, twenty million living in abject terror, . . .

And the viable alternative is?

 

[Hurkyl]

What should we do with Iraq? Pull out. Who cares about national pride and all of that garbage? We're of no use being there, and sure there maybe more chaos if we leave, but it has been painfully obvious that us occupying the region hasn't done that country any good.

Wait; if you agree that there would be more chaos if we leave, then doesn't that suggest that we are doing that country good by staying?

 

[phoenixy]

Wait; if you agree that there would be more chaos if we leave, then doesn't that suggest that we are doing that country good by staying?

Not quite. Staying in Iraq is like staying in a casino. We haven't won for so long that the jackpot is due for us in the immediate future right? Well unfortunately, because of the lack of sound judgement in the past, nothing is so clear cut. Recently, it looks like we might increase our chip stack, so maybe putting more money on the table would help? Or maybe now it is a good time to work on the casino rigging issues? How about diversify our asset a little more by betting in the neighbouring Iranian casino in the mean time? To me it seems like there are quite a number of addicted gamblers resided on the capital hill.

When you are already committed a sizeable chunk in the pot, it is quite difficult to pack your bag and cut the loss. At this point, throwing more money on the table really does not guaranteed anything.

 

[Rach3]

Not quite. Staying in Iraq is like staying in a casino. We haven't won for so long that the jackpot is due for us in the immediate future right? Well unfortunately, because of the lack of sound judgement in the past, nothing is so clear cut. Recently, it looks like we might increase our chip stack, so maybe putting more money on the table would help? Or maybe now it is a good time to work on the casino rigging issues? How about diversify our asset a little more by betting in the neighbouring Iranian casino in the mean time? To me it seems like there are quite a number of addicted gamblers resided on the capital hill.

When you are already committed a sizeable chunk in the pot, it is quite difficult to pack your bag and cut the loss. At this point, throwing more money on the table really does not guaranteed anything.

Huh? 10 characters[/color]

 

[Number2Pencil]

Does anyone think the war in Iraq could leak into a bigger war with Iran?

 

[verty]

I would say that depends on the other UN members.

 

[SticksandStones]

I would say that depends on the other UN members.

Why would it? We ignored the UN on Iraq, why would we listen to them on Iran?

 

[Astronuc]

Not quite. Staying in Iraq is like staying in a casino. We haven't won for so long that the jackpot is due for us in the immediate future right? Well unfortunately, because of the lack of sound judgement in the past, nothing is so clear cut. Recently, it looks like we might increase our chip stack, so maybe putting more money on the table would help? Or maybe now it is a good time to work on the casino rigging issues? How about diversify our asset a little more by betting in the neighbouring Iranian casino in the mean time? To me it seems like there are quite a number of addicted gamblers resided on the capital hill.

When you are already committed a sizeable chunk in the pot, it is quite difficult to pack your bag and cut the loss. At this point, throwing more money on the table really does not guaranteed anything.

Interesting perspective and possibly a reasonable assessment of the situation.

I am still pondering someone's comment (not here) that the Bush administration has coerced the Iraqis to turn over control of the oil fields to multi-national oil corporations. Now it would be interesting if that were the case, and then the security was provided by private contractors (aka mercenaries - those currently working for the US government) hired by the multinational corporations. Effectively then, Bush, Cheney et al would have used US military and US government resources to extract the assets of a sovereign state for personal gain. Hmmmm! Seems like a plot from a fiction novel, which might actually turn out to be the reality.

 

[phoenixy]

To clarify, what I was trying to say is that the mentality of "to win, to success, to triumph" in Iraq has become more and more delusional. The cause of war itself has been discussed extensively and I think it is fair to say that the justifications used are at best, devious. This leads to the problem that the whole Iraq fiasco is not well-defined. For instance, some would say that the war ended with the defeat of the Iraqis military; or maybe it is the capture/execution of Saddam; or maybe it will end when Iraq become the Mideast utopia; more importantly, a widespread viewpoint adopts Iraq as part of the War on Terror. But War on Terror is not a physical entity, it is merely a concept that has a vast number of different perceptions and interpolations. A concept is not something that can be defeat by munitions. Conversely, it cannot be won. Interestingly enough, the current situation shows that it can be lost by stalemate. Everytime I hear politicians who throw out War on Terror as part of an argument, I see someone who intentionally or unintentionally attempt to shift the focus from physical reality to an idealistic imagination.

This is why I used the gambling analogy to describe Iraq. We are losing, and we are on the path to lose more. We cannot win in the first place because of the failure to establish a solid objective and sound strategy. I have no faith in any decision made by the current administration, as shown by its utter incompetence thus far. The qualities of certainty, ability, and authority that a leader meant to possesses is simply lacking, which is why any decision made can be regard as placing yet another bet. When you are not a good gambler, perhaps it is a better choice to avoid gambling in the first place. But unfortunately, it has come down to this.

I have a great deal of respect for McCain. But I think his "try to win" attitude is simply delusional, compare to Hegal's "try not to lose more". I don't want to be overly pessimistic, I simply don't see any good solution to the current dilemma. All those left for the taking are the bad, the worse, and the worst.

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like al Maliki's finally jumped off the fence...

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/19/ap3342574.html

U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested a top aide to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Friday in Baghdad, his office said.
...
The U.S. military said special Iraqi army forces operating with coalition advisers captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader in Baladiyat, but it did not identify the detainee. It said two other suspects were detained by Iraqi forces for further questioning.

The raid comes as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged to crack down on Shiite militias as well as Sunni insurgents in a planned security operation to quell the sectarian violence in Baghdad amid concerns that his reluctance to confront the Mahdi Army of his political backer al-Sadr led to the failure of two previous crackdowns.

 

[BobG]

The first effects of the surge: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701300056jan30,1,7758477.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Sadr's militia lies low and sees how things play out. They can always crawl out of the wordwork later. Of course, that's assuming his group pushes the demand for release of Sadrist detainees to the back burner for a while - in fact, the failure to release Sadrist detainees will give them an excuse to take up arms again sometime in the future.

If Sadr's militias are laying low, who will the extra troops get? Militias on Rise in Iraq

Hard to say how things will work out, but the troop surge might not turn out to badly for Sadr. It could thin out some of the competition within the Shiite community.

 

[Astronuc]

Analysis Is Bleak on Iraq’s Future By MARK MAZZETTI, NYTimes

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — The release on Friday of portions of a bleak new National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s future left the White House and its opponents vying over whether its findings buttressed their vastly different views about how to arrest the worsening sectarian chaos there. . . .

President Bush acknowledged last month that his strategy had failed so far.
. . . .

The report was released a week after Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed suggestions that Iraq is in a parlous state, saying, “The reality on the ground is, we’ve made major progress.”

I think Cheney needs to retire.

Bush has a slim chance - perhaps. He needs an effective diplomatic strategy - but is that possible with his administration?

 

[denverdoc]

Analysis Is Bleak on Iraq’s Future By MARK MAZZETTI, NYTimes

I think Cheney needs to retire.

Bush has a slim chance - perhaps. He needs an effective diplomatic strategy - but is that possible with his administration?

Not sure re the latter, definitely the latter. I personally thought once we secured the deal

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

we'd be outta there, but I guess the fear is the deals would mean nothing if the interim govt fails.

 

[Astronuc]

Few Veteran Diplomats Accept Mission to Iraq

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — While the diplomats and Foreign Service employees of the State Department have always been expected to staff “hardship” postings, those jobs have not usually required that they wear flak jackets with their pinstriped suits.

But in the last five years, the Foreign Service landscape has shifted.

Now, thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House is calling for more American civilians to head not only to those countries, but also to some of their most hostile regions — including Iraq’s volatile Anbar Province — to try to establish democratic institutions and help in reconstruction. That plan is provoking unease and apprehension at the State Department and at other federal agencies.

Many federal employees have outright refused repeated requests that they go to Iraq, while others have demanded that they be assigned only to Baghdad and not be sent outside the more secure Green Zone, which includes the American Embassy and Iraqi government ministries. And while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice maintained Wednesday that State Department employees were “volunteering in large numbers” for difficult posts, including Iraq, several department employees said that those who had signed up tended to be younger, more entry-level types, and not experienced, seasoned diplomats.

The reluctance highlights a problem with the administration’s new strategy for Iraq, which calls on American diplomats to take challenges on a scale unmatched anywhere else in the world, when the lack of security on the ground outside the Green Zone makes it one of the last places people, particularly those with families, want to go.

Well, so much for winning in Iraq.

 

[denverdoc]

Three times in the past two years I have received recruitment calls from the US military, which I have politely declined for our mutual benefits. Could you imagine me talking some shell shocked 25 yo chopper pilot into going back out there? I haven't heard of cold calls to MD's before from Uncle, but maybe nothing unusual at all. And I count my blessings for not taking the advice of my residency director who was a bird colonel in the reserves to join up. He's been over there for some time now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Three times in the past two years I have received recruitment calls from the US military, which I have politely declined for our mutual benefits. Could you imagine me talking some shell shocked 25 yo chopper pilot into going back out there? I haven't heard of cold calls to MD's before from Uncle, but maybe nothing unusual at all. And I count my blessings for not taking the advice of my residency director who was a bird colonel in the reserves to join up. He's been over there for some time now.

At one point my wife and I both had a chance to go - her for medical support and me as an industrial contractor. Boy oh boy are we glad that we passed.

 

[Astronuc]

What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. The latest National Intelligence Estimate said as much when it posited that “even if violence is diminished,” Iraq’s “absence of unifying leaders” makes political reconciliation doubtful. Not enough capable Iraqi troops are showing up and, as Gen. Peter Pace told the Senate last week, not enough armored vehicles are available to protect the new American deployments. The State Department can’t recruit enough civilian officials to manage the latest push to turn on Baghdad’s electricity and is engaged in its own sectarian hostilities with the Pentagon. Revealingly enough, the surge’s cheerleaders are already searching for post-Rumsfeld scapegoats. William Kristol attacked the new defense secretary, Robert Gates, for “letting the Joint Chiefs slow-walk the brigades in.”

from Frank Rich, Stop Him Before He Gets More Experience, NYTimes OP-ED , February 11, 2007

The legacy of Bush and Cheney - FAILURE!

 

[denverdoc]

Does anyone think the war in Iraq could leak into a bigger war with Iran?

Recent events sure remind me of the run-up to the war in Iraq. I'll take my news Heavy on the propoganda please!

 

[Evo]

On a very sad note a nineteen year old friend of the Evo child's leaves for Iraq at the end of the month.

He comes from a very wealthy family (you'd recognize the name). They couldn't deal with him growing up, so they shipped him off to a private military school.

Now he wants to go fight. He was brilliant, had a brilliant life ahead of him if his parent's hadn't intervened. When he asked me to intervene and take him away from them, I wish now that I had. They were more concerned about
him breaking a priceless Ming Vase then them breaking his heart.

He's named his machine gun after me for luck. He said he feels being closer to me that way will keep him focused. He's like the son I never had.

I know this will end badly. He calls me mom.

I hope he's forgotten how un lucky I am.

 

[Astronuc]

I know this will end badly. He calls me mom.

Think positive thoughts.

I hope he's forgotten how un lucky I am.

Maybe in his case, you bring good luck. I hope so.

 

[denverdoc]

On a very sad note a nineteen year old friend of the Evo child's leaves for Iraq at the end of the month.

He comes from a very wealthy family (you'd recognize the name). They couldn't deal with him growing up, so they shipped him off to a private military school.

Now he wants to go fight. He was brilliant, had a brilliant life ahead of him if his parent's hadn't intervened. When he asked me to intervene and take him away from them, I wish now that I had. They were more concerned about
him breaking a priceless Ming Vase then them breaking his heart.

He's named his machine gun after me for luck. He said he feels being closer to me that way will keep him focused. He's like the son I never had.

I know this will end badly. He calls me mom.

I hope he's forgotten how un lucky I am.

Evo,
This story has been told a million times in a hundred different languages. And maybe aired nightly on Fox News, things would be different. It's not exactly a boys will be boys message. Too trite. But young men and women often make these types of decisions. More often than not they return home. To me it matters not whether he had a recognizeable last name, or an IQ of 180 versus 85. Waste is waste. A more precious bauble on the tree of humanity, perhaps. I think they are all precious. And to die needlessly a sin. My prayers, meager as they may be, are with you and your friend.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Our budget for Iraq is such that we could pay each Iraqi $5400 a year to put down their arms and work full time rebuilding the country. This is greater than any yearly average income indicated. And it would in fact amount to something like $20K per year per family, or more?

I had calculated this just for fun, but I wonder if it is possible to buy your way out of a religious civil war.

 

[Astronuc]

I had calculated this just for fun, but I wonder if it is possible to buy your way out of a religious civil war.

After nearly 4 years of incessant violence - I don't think it's so easy to stop.

3 U.S. troops killed hunting weapons cache
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/10/iraq.main/index.html

The black market for high-powered weapons is booming in Baghdad.

New U.S. commander in Iraq: Situation 'not hopeless'
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/10/iraq.petraeus.ap/index.html


Meanwhile in Afghanistan -
Army Reprimands 2 Soldiers for Abuses Uncovered by CIR Reporter
http://www.muckraker.org/pg_one_investigation-1259-11-0.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

After nearly 4 years of incessant violence - I don't think it's so easy to stop.

True, but that will be true in any event. And it is hard to see how things can improve without a huge investment in rebuilding the infrastructure.

Truthfully, I find it hard to believe that money wouldn't matter to most. We have offered nothing but bombs and bullets to calm the violence thus far.

 

[Astronuc]

True, but that will be true in any event. And it is hard to see how things can improve without a huge investment in rebuilding the infrastructure.

Certainly. It would help if they had the electricity and water running - outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad.

Truthfully, I find it hard to believe that money wouldn't matter to most. We have offered nothing but bombs and bullets to calm the violence thus far.

They need someone who can step forward and tell them - Shii do not kill Sunni, and Sunni do not kill Shii - Salaam. But it would have to be one heck of a person to pull that off.

 

[denverdoc]

Certainly. It would help if they had the electricity and water running - outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad.

They need someone who can step forward and tell them - Shii do not kill Sunni, and Sunni do not kill Shii - Salaam. But it would have to be one heck of a person to pull that off.

And likely end up in the gunsights of an operative. Feeling particularly cynical this evening as the bomb part S/N's are doing a deja vu of the aluminum tubing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What do you think we should do?

 

[Astronuc]

This is very troubling -

Jailed 2 Years, Iraqi Tells of Abuse by Americans
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/middleeast/18bucca.html
NY Times, February 18, 2007

DAMASCUS, Syria — In the early hours of Jan. 6, Laith al-Ani stood in a jail near the Baghdad airport waiting to be released by the American military after two years and three months in captivity.

He struggled to quell his hope. Other prisoners had gotten as far as the gate only to be brought back inside, he said, and he feared that would happen to him as punishment for letting his family discuss his case with a reporter.

But as the morning light grew, the American guards moved Mr. Ani, a 31-year-old father of two young children, methodically toward freedom. They swapped his yellow prison suit for street clothes, he said. They snipped off his white plastic identification bracelet. They scanned his irises into their database.

Then, shortly before 9 a.m., Mr. Ani said, he was brought to a table for one last step. He was handed a form and asked to place a check mark next to the sentence that best described how he had been treated:

“I didn’t go through any abuse during detention,” read the first option, in Arabic.

“I have gone through abuse during detention,” read the second.

In the room, he said, stood three American guards carrying the type of electric stun devices that Mr. Ani and other detainees said had been used on them for infractions as minor as speaking out of turn.

“Even the translator told me to sign the first answer,” said Mr. Ani, who gave a copy of his form to The New York Times. “I asked him what happens if I sign the second one, and he raised his hands,” as if to say, Who knows?

“I thought if I don’t sign the first one I am not going to get out of this place.”

Shoving the memories of his detention aside, he checked the first box and minutes later was running through a cold rain to his waiting parents. “My heart was beating so hard,” he said. “You can’t believe how I cried.”

It would seem that some Americans are behaving like those of Saddam Hussein's security forces. This is not going to help lead to a peaceful democratic society with a friendly disposition toward the US.


Also - I heard a report today that the quality of life in Iraq has deteriorated during the American occupation from the meager levels sustained during the last years of Saddam Husseins rule. Rather than help improve the situation in Iraq, the US occupation has made it worse. That is not success.

 

[denverdoc]

Actually my impression is that were it not for the sanctions, pre-invasion Iraq was relatively prosperous with a large middle class, and more opportunity for women than most other states in the region. Not defending Saddam, but what a mess, now with little oil flowing and the infrastructure in tatters.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This morning on Meet the Press, Richard Engel, a reporter who has been in Iraq for four years, described the Iraqi people as being in a state of shock. Engel also mentions an Iraqi friend who is losing his hair and his mind.

The show and transcripts should be online shortly
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

It was reported on MTP [and other news sources] that Jordan and Syria are now, or soon will start turning away Iraqi refugees.

 

[turbo]

Actually my impression is that were it not for the sanctions, pre-invasion Iraq was relatively prosperous with a large middle class, and more opportunity for women than most other states in the region. Not defending Saddam, but what a mess, now with little oil flowing and the infrastructure in tatters.

Yes - Saddam was a jerk, but he had little tolerance for religious radicals, and therefor women fared better in Iraq than in most neighboring countries. There were markets, schools, businesses and a large middle class with the opportunity to better their lot. Bush/Cheney have destroyed that, and it will not be possible to recover for many decades, if at all. The drain on brain and talent has got to be tremendous, as professors, doctors, and other professionals and businesspeople with the means to leave Iraq did so to get their families and themselves to relative safety. Many of their neighborhoods have been radicalized and "cleansed" of their particular sects, and they may never be able to return safely. So sad...

 

[Astronuc]

Actually my impression is that were it not for the sanctions, pre-invasion Iraq was relatively prosperous with a large middle class, and more opportunity for women than most other states in the region. Not defending Saddam, but what a mess, now with little oil flowing and the infrastructure in tatters.

The BBC radio report that I heard this morning mentioned that most Iraqis are not receiving benefits from the oil money! Also - one in three Iraqi now live in poverty.

I just found - One in three Iraqis 'in poverty'

One-third of Iraqis are now living in poverty, according to a new UN study, with 5% in extreme poverty, a sharp deterioration since the 2003 invasion.

Oil riches are not benefiting many of Iraq's people, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) study says.

The report's authors are also highly critical of US-led attempts to try to introduce a market economy quickly.

They single out education, saying things have not improved since the neglect of the Saddam years.

Other indicators show a sharper fall, with half the population having unsatisfactory water supplies and more than 40% deprived of good sanitation.

They say economic shock treatment in recent years has been naive and immature.

It should be pointed out that the study "is based on data from 2004." That leaves room for the possibility that things have improved somewhat in 2 years. Somehow though, I doubt it.

The link to the MTP transcript with Engel is - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168627/page/6/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, the transcript is up and here's the excerpt.

...
MR. ENGEL: It has been my life for the last four years, and I’ve had many friends who’ve had, you know, terrible things happen to them, Iraqis, and part of the, part of the purpose of this documentary is to show some of the stories that we’ve been living ourselves through, and to try and show—internalize a little bit what it, hat it has been like for me. And one of the stories I want to talk about is my Iraqi—one of my best friends there, whose father was kidnapped and he remains missing, and it’s just a very human story. He goes every day to what I think must be the worst place on the planet. It’s the main morgue in Baghdad and he sifts through the hundreds of bodies that are in terrible state of decay. These are only unidentified bodies that are brought to the morgue and he’s searching for his father, and he’s told me, “I don’t even know if I saw him I would be able to recognize him because the bodies are so badly decomposing.” And these kind of stories just, we’ve come across so many, and after four years they do have an impact. I think he, he—this young man is starting to lose his hair, I think he’s losing his mind. It’s an entire country suffering from post-traumatic stress. So our own experiences, I think, also reflect to a degree what the country has, has gone through. [continued]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168627/page/6/

 

[Art]

Has America been backing the wrong side?

IMO The main problem the US has in Iraq at the moment is figuring out who they should be supporting.

Their more natural allies would be the Sunnis but instead because of their treatment of the secular Sunni Ba'ath party following the invasion the US has burned it's bridges there and is in the rather strange position now of at least indirectly helping the pro-Iranian Shia sect achieve it's goals whilst their affiliation to the US extends only so far as they will tolerate US forces so long as the US forces are helping them militarily against the Sunnis.

If the US move against the Shia militias as they are saying they will it is likely this fragile alliance will be broken resulting in US forces being attacked by a whole new sector of the population.

Even if all fighting stopped immediately the US would still be in the position of having removed a secular power only to have replaced it with a pro-Iranian, fundametalist Shia dominated gov't which probably doesn't bode well for US interests in the long term and certainly not for the long term stability of the Sunni dominated wider ME.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Murtha and Graham each stated their case on Meet the Press this morning.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

The biggest problem that I see with Graham's position, or anyone who wants to stay in Iraq for that matter, is that we still don't have a clear plan. How long, at what cost, and how many troops will be needed - troops that will come from, where? And again, is this completely at the expense of US national security by the continued abuse of the National Guard and Reserves? The republicans keep accusing the dems of lacking a specific plan, but I don't see that the reps have one either. Saying "stay", or "get control of Baghdad", is not a plan to success. It is at most a first step. What happens if and when Baghdad is secured?

Something else that bothered me. Graham is claiming that we are fighting the domino effect. To put Iraq on par with these other countries [Graham cites] is silly. As long as we don't invade and destabilize these areas as we did with Iraq, the situation is not so simple as Graham suggests. He completely ignores that other countries have stable governments that we can support in the war on terror. And he himself claims that most Muslims want peace. So if the majority of Muslims want peace, why would all of these other countries fall if we leave Iraq?

My concern is that by first invading Iraq, and then esp when we failed to find WMDs or any justification for the invasion, we have empowered any destablilizing elements in all other Muslim countries. I don't see how staying is going to help on this front. So in this sense, I think Graham is worried about preventing what Bush, Cheney, and Rummy, have already accomplished.

 

[BobG]

I don't think the odds favor Iraq.

Between the end of WWII and the Iraq invasion, there were about 122 civil wars. Six of these civil wars have been resolved by power sharing (3 of these are a little dubious - where the civil war was considered ended since fighting stopped for 5 years, but was followed by a new civil war around 10 years later).

'About' 122 since it's sometimes hard to decide whether a country had one real long civil war or two separate civil wars. If several groups of insurgents band together to win a civil war, but then their alliance falls apart and they start fighting among themselves, it's generally considered a new civil war; not a continuation of the first.

Afghanistan would be an example - insurgents won the civil war of 1978-1992, but a new civil war broke out among the different groups within the winners. The Taliban, with an influx of money and aid from Al-Qaeda, finally gained the upper hand, but they didn't stay in power enough to really say the post-1992 civil war has really ended. In spite of a new democratic government, you'd probably have to say Afghanistan is still fighting the post-1992 civil war and not a new one. It's still the same parties fighting each other.

Coups and revolutions make for short civil wars - a median duration of around 2.5 years with a mean of around 3.2 years.

In 'sons of soil' type civil wars - where the civil war resulted from one side exploiting the resources of ethnic minorities (or majorities), civil wars have a mean duration of 32.4 years and a mean duration of 41.4 years.

Iraq would fit this category if civil war had broken out on its own without a US invasion. It still has a lot of the traits of the 'sons of soils' type of civil wars, but maybe it should be lumped into the 'all the rest' group, which has a median duration of 10.3 years and a mean of 13.2 years. Personally, I think the pre-invasion Sunni dominance of the Kurds and Shi'ites carries a lot of baggage that makes Iraq closer to the 'sons of soil' type civil war.

The six cases where power sharing successfully resolved the civil war:

Lebanon 1958 (one of the dubious successes - the success didn't last)
Sudan 1972 (one of the dubious successes - fighting stopped for 11 years, but then an even bloodier civil war broke out)
Zimbabwe 1979 (another dubious success - a new civil war eventually broke out)
Mozambique 1992 (successful resolution of a civil war fought for political reasons, not ethnic)
South Africa 1994 (successful because of Nelson Mandela - he truly is one of the great leaders in human history)
Guatemala 1996 (a second successful resolution of ethnic civil war through power sharing - Edit: successful at least as of 2002 - it still seems to be a mix of very serious problems and some very promising hopes)

Every other civil war was resolved through one side winning a clear victory or in a stalemate imposed by external parties. Bosnia, for example. If peacekeepers leave, civil war breaks out again almost instantly. There's been no resolution even 10 years later.

Sistani hasn't turned out to be another Nelson Mandela, so the most likely successful outcome for both Iraq (and Afghanistan) is peacekeeping succeeds and succeeds for the next few decades? Or is the most successful outcome to have Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds fight it out until one side finally wins? The last method is usually the best hope for a long term solution.

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_06spring/kuperman.htm
http://test.cbrss.harvard.edu/NewsEvents/Seminars-WShops/PPE/papers/fearon.pdf
http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/02/civilwar925.html

 

[Astronuc]

Here's a twist -

Iraqi Insurgents Chastise Al-Qaeda
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1607603,00.html

Al-Qaeda has overstayed its welcome among a powerful group of Iraqi insurgents. One of the most influential nationalist insurgent groups in Iraq has asked Osama bin Laden to remember his religious duty to his fellow Muslims and "bring in line" his organization in Iraq. An open letter from the Islamic Army in Iraq posted on its affiliated website, Al Badil, has demanded that the new al-Qaeda-led alliance reform its ways and stop its attacks on Sunni Muslims and rival jihadi groups.

The letter comes at a time of upheaval inside insurgent circles in Iraq. In the fall, al- Qaeda created a new jihadi super-group called the Islamic State of Iraq to unite the disparate cells fighting the U.S. and Shi'ite militias in the country. Al-Qaeda demanded all insurgent groups swear loyalty to the new organization, but some of the most active Iraqi nationalist groups refused. These included the Islamic Army in Iraq, the Brigades of the 1920 Revolution and the Mujahideen Army, all of which include many well-trained military officers of the former regime. These groups tend to shun sectarian warfare and are more focused on attacking the U.S. and the current Iraqi government with the objective of ending the occupation and restoring a Sunni-led regime.

Over the past several months, al-Qaeda has retaliated by targeting the leaders of these independent groups and killing their members. Al-Qaeda "went too far," says the letter, "by killing 30 mujahideen brothers." In doing so, al-Qaeda is beginning to spark a wildfire of tribal vendettas that will be difficult to put out. Two weeks ago, the assassination of Harith Thahir al-Dari, the son of the sheik of the Zoba tribe, turned the powerful clan against al-Qaeda. Al-Dari is also the nephew of the leader of the Islamic Scholars Association, Harith al-Dari, and was a commander of the nationalist insurgent group the Brigades of the 1920 Revolution.

. . . .

Al Qaeda is clearly the problem. I think one needs to distinguish between insurgents fighting on their own territory, ostensibly on behalf of their liberty, and terrorists who simply employ violence for the sake of violence and use violence as a political tool. In theory, eventually an insurgent/freedom-fighter would realize non-violence is the only viable option for stability and progress.

 

[Astronuc]

America's Broken-Down Army
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1606888,00.html

For most Americans, the Iraq war is both distant and never ending. For Private Matthew Zeimer, it was neither. Shortly after midnight on Feb. 2, Zeimer had his first taste of combat as he scrambled to the roof of the 3rd Infantry Division's Combat Outpost Grant in central Ramadi. Under cover of darkness, Sunni insurgents were attacking his new post from nearby buildings. Amid the smoke, noise and confusion, a blast suddenly ripped through the 3-ft. concrete wall shielding Zeimer and a fellow soldier, killing them both. Zeimer had been in Iraq for a week. He had been at his first combat post for two hours.

If Zeimer's combat career was brief, so was his training. He enlisted last June at age 17, three weeks after graduating from Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. After finishing nine weeks of basic training and additional preparation in infantry tactics in Oklahoma, he arrived at Fort Stewart, Ga., in early December. But Zeimer had missed the intense four-week pre-Iraq training—a taste of what troops will face in combat—that his 1st Brigade comrades got at their home post in October. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That's the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals' household staffs the finer points of table service.

The Army and the White House insist the abbreviated training was adequate. "They can get desert training elsewhere," spokesman Tony Snow said Feb. 28, "like in Iraq." But outside military experts and Zeimer's mother disagree. The Army's rush to carry out President George W. Bush's order to send thousands of additional troops more quickly to Iraq is forcing two of the five new brigades bound for the war to skip standard training at Fort Irwin, Calif. These soldiers aren't getting the benefit of participating in war games on the wide Mojave Desert, where gun-jamming sand and faux insurgents closely resemble conditions in Iraq. "Given the new policy of having troops among the Iraqis," says Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon personnel chief, "they should be giving our young soldiers more training, not less." Zeimer's mother was unaware of the gap in her son's training until TIME told her about it on April 2. Two days later the Army disclosed that Zeimer may have been killed by friendly fire. "They're shipping more and more young kids over there who don't know what they're getting into," Janet Seymour said quietly after learning what her son had missed. "They've never seen war other than on the TV."

The truncated training—the rush to get underprepared troops to the war zone— . . . . <continued>

It seem that the Bush administration has undermined the military, despite repeated assertions of "doing all that is necessary for the troops". Words and deeds of the administration are diametrically opposed.

So what about the money spent on private security/defense contractors? What about money spent on Halliburton and other corporations? What of the $10's billions for which there is no account?

 

[kyleb]

Al Qaeda is clearly the problem. I think one needs to distinguish between insurgents fighting on their own territory, ostensibly on behalf of their liberty, and terrorists who simply employ violence for the sake of violence and use violence as a political tool.

Al Qaeda is certainly a problem, but all sides are using violence as a political tool. As the article you quoted explains, the insurgency employs violence to oppose our political goals:

These groups tend to shun sectarian warfare and are more focused on attacking the U.S. and the current Iraqi government with the objective of ending the occupation and restoring a Sunni-led regime.

In theory, eventually an insurgent/freedom-fighter would realize non-violence is the only viable option for stability and progress.

So, respecting the fact that they have a different vision of stability and progress than we have been pushing; what alternative means do you theorize they would turn to while we continue to impose our own vision of stability and progress though violence? Or would you rather agree that both sides will need to renounce the use of force in imposing our respective wills before a peaceful resolution can be reached?