News Should we withdraw troops immediately?

[SOS2008]

Three brigades may be cut in Iraq in early 2006
Some U.S. troops would remain ‘on call’ in Kuwait

Updated: 11:19 a.m. ET Nov. 23, 2005

Barring any major surprises in Iraq, the Pentagon tentatively plans to reduce the number of U.S. forces there early next year by as many as three combat brigades, from 18 now, but to keep at least one brigade "on call" in Kuwait in case more troops are needed quickly, several senior military officers said.

Pentagon authorities also have set a series of "decision points" during 2006 to consider further force cuts that, under a "moderately optimistic" scenario, would drop the total number of troops from more than 150,000 now to fewer than 100,000, including 10 combat brigades, by the end of the year, the officers said.

…All the officers who spoke about the troop plans stressed that final decisions will come only after the Dec. 15 vote. But they described the moves as likely, assuming no major turn for the worse in Iraq. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to discuss the plans. They also were unable to provide an exact figure for how many troops would remain in Iraq after the initial reductions take effect next year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10166449/page/2/

After the arm-twisting by Dems via a closed door session in the Senate, who then took the brunt of name calling, including Republican attacks on Murtha, this article presents the possibility of some draw-down as a Pentagon concept, and even refers to a quote from Rummy. It only mentions in passing that this concept is the same as Murtha’s “call for withdrawal last week,” who “also suggested retaining a quick-reaction force in the region as well as Marines within a short sailing time away.” (Damn liberal media.)

But we’ll have to wait and see what really transpires…

 

[Anttech]

heh..after ten years of military occupation and still..you think there are no problems? Wanna talk about "quagmires", now there was one for you.

Do you know any Croates? Do you know any Serbs? Do you know any Albanians? Do you know any Greeks? Do you know any Romanians? Do you know anyone from Macedonia?

You probably don't even know which area of Europe actually is the "Balkans" just so you can grasp where the “Balkans” is in Europe its the whole of the “south east”

Try and brush up on your Geography before you jump on the sledging bandwagon.

None of the above mentioned countries are currently under occupation or are currently at war… Are you disputing this fact Kat?

Why do I even rise to this... sigh

 

[Smurf]

None of the above mentioned countries are currently under occupation or are currently at war… Are you disputing this fact Kat?

Not really, They're just not under foreign occupation. They're still occupied. Just like France is occupied by the French Army.

 

[Anttech]

Not really, They're just not under foreign occupation. They're still occupied. Just like France is occupied by the French Army.

France is occupied by the French army?

Bar the semantics, what exacatly are you getting at? This is the first time I have heard anyone use "occupied" with in the context we are dissusing, in this way.

 

[Smurf]

It's just a technicality. France is occupied by the French Army which maintains control of France for the French government.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's just a technicality. France is occupied by the French Army which maintains control of France for the French government.

So if the French army were to fail in its occupation there would be a spontaneous uprising of he French people? To install what...?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure how it works for France, but in the US, the military is not allowed to conduct such operations in-country. Thus it would not be appropriate to say the US military "occupies" the US. I rather suspect France is the same way.

 

[Art]

Not really, They're just not under foreign occupation. They're still occupied. Just like France is occupied by the French Army.

I presume this is meant to be a facetious comment rather than a serious contention?

 

[Smurf]

Not facetious, trivial and unimportant, but not facetious.

 

[McGyver]

We've Already Achieved Nearly All Bush's Pre-War Objectives

I do believe we've already achieved most all of Bush's pre-war objectives regarding the war in Iraq. Perhaps the only one remaining is that of normalaized flow of oil - but that will take time as religious sect tensions continue to feed violence.

Pre War Objectives:
1. Remove Saddam Hussein from power = done
2. Seek and destroy WMDs and capability = done
3. Pres. Bush to land on carrier in pilot duds = done
4. Show rest of world we can do it alone = done
5. Institute PR campaign on Democracy = done
6. Return oil flows to pre-sanction era capacity = not done

I don't recall much pre-war discussion about turning Iraq into a Democracy. And we did institute Bush's PR agenda. We can't be held accountable for the Iraqi people not liking the U.S. invasion and present occupation. If they would chill their race/religious sect rioting, we would leave. It's that simple. We can't make them like each other - and I don't believe that was ever part of the U.S. objectives. At some point in time, they as a country must come together and stop the in-fighting. We should move a significant portion of our troops away from the cities, and station them mostly near the borders and critical oil areas. If we do as Rep. Murtha proposed, it's not cut and run. It's more like we've achieved most of our objectives - now we want you boys to take over. See ya!

We'll be back over yonder. Just hollar if you need some help.

Such a strategy would certainly send a clear message to those that keep fighting, and those to chicken to stop it, "Get your sssshhh together!"

 

[Mercator]

Such a strategy would certainly send a clear message to those that keep fighting, and those to chicken to stop it, "Get your sssshhh together!"

Nobody ever replied on my proposal to separate a part of Iarq, develop it into a safe and prosperous area and example for the rest.

 

[Astronuc]

Nobody ever replied on my proposal to separate a part of Iarq, develop it into a safe and prosperous area and example for the rest.

I think developing a separate part of Iraq to be prosperous and safe would be difficult, and perhaps impossible and impractical. One would have to have strong border defense, and still insurgents would likely infiltrate and set off bombs as is the case now.

And which area, Kurds? Shiites? Sunnis?

I think it best if they all work it out together.

Perhaps the quickest way for peace is for the US to withdraw, because indigenous insurgents simply want the US gone so they can get on with their own lives in their own 'unoccupied' country. Then the indigenous insurgents can deal with foreign insurgents and al Qaida.

 

[Amp1]

Pre War Objectives:
1. Remove Saddam Hussein from power = done
2. Seek and destroy WMDs and capability = done
3. Pres. Bush to land on carrier in pilot duds = done
4. Show rest of world we can do it alone = done
5. Institute PR campaign on Democracy = done
6. Return oil flows to pre-sanction era capacity = not done

#1,#3 and #5 were done. #2 is not applicable because there were none. Bushco coerced congress into giving the ok to invade and then invaded with the quickness of a striking viper. They didn't want people to get a second to reflect on their reasons for going in because they knew the descrepancies would become glaringly obvious. they took advantage of the atmosphere of fear and panic that prevailed behind the WTC attack. They knew they could keep pumping the populace to maintain that panic and fear by mis-informing them which they did not hesitate to do.
On the MacGlaulin(?) group this past Sunday(12/4/2005) John outlined a plan submitted by a viewer to his website. It basicly called for the US to draw back and let the factions 'fight among themselves' and after they were sufficiently weakened go back in and eliminate or contain them. It is a cold and cruel idea because the US started the problems by invading, but it could work. One of the biggest mistakes the US made was disbanding Saddam's army -why?- because NOW the US is trying to recruit former members to bolster the forces it is hopng to place in charge of security when it withdraws.

 

[Astronuc]

US should probably withdraw ASAP. Remaining seems to making a bad situation worse. Rather than becoming more stable, the area is less stable. And as for Democracy, even with the upcoming elections, the result will be far less than democracy, well as it is expressed in the US and other more-or-less democratic countries.

And interesting editorial by By KANAN MAKIYA (professor at Brandeis University and the founder of the Iraq Memory Foundation, is the author of "Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising and the Arab World."), Dec 11, NY Times assesses the problems.

. . . none of the problems associated with Iraq's monumental change have been sorted out. Worse, profound tensions and contradictions have been enshrined in the Constitution of the new Iraq, and they threaten the very existence of the state.

. . .

Any government that emerges from the coming elections will be fatally undermined in at least three ways.

First, the Constitution establishes a supremely powerful Parliament, which can ride roughshod over the executive. While that Parliament, as it is designed in the Constitution, looks like a democratic institution, it doesn't work like one. Rather, it is an artificially constructed collection of ethnic and sectarian voting blocs. If the experience of the interim government is any guide, the few people who control those blocs are the ones who will wield real power, and they will do so largely through handpicked committees and backroom wheeling and dealing. Because this cabal of powerbrokers also chooses the president and the prime minister and can dismiss them with a simple majority, there will be no check on the tyranny of majorities operating under the aegis of the legislature.

Second, executive power is divided between the president and the council of ministers, guaranteeing that major decisions will be met with the same tension and paralysis that have plagued the present government. Both the president and the prime minister (it is assumed, though not explicitly stated, that these two posts will be apportioned out to a Kurd and a Shiite Arab, as they are at present) can separately present bills to Parliament - a sure recipe for conflict. And both the president and the prime minister can be fired after a no-confidence motion endorsed by a parliamentary majority. At a time of civil war and pervasive violence, in other words, no one person or institution can be said to be in charge of the executive branch of the federal government.

Third, the Constitution encourages the transformation of governorates and local administrations into powerful, nearly sovereign regions that, with the exception of Kurdistan, have no underlying basis for unity. And while the articles dealing with the functioning of the federal government are poorly worded and intended to dissipate executive power, the 10 articles of Section 5, on the powers and manner of formation of new regions, are a model of clarity and have been drafted with the sole purpose of encouraging new regions to be created at the expense of the federal union.

but

Ambassador Says Elections May Not Lead to Withdrawal

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 - Four days before parliamentary elections in Iraq that the Bush administration has portrayed as a "significant milestone," the American ambassador there and a Republican lawmaker cautioned today against assuming that the vote would produce quick and dramatic improvement or lead to a rapid withdrawal of United States forces.

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the elections would underscore the rising importance of the political process - and, he hopes, rising Sunni participation in that process - and should accelerate a gradual reduction in the military presence. He predicted that Sunni parties would win 40 to 55 seats in the 275-seat assembly, with no party gaining a majority. That would give the Sunnis a "critical role" in talks on a new constitution.

NY Times, Dec 11

 

[ComputerGeek]

Again refer to the post above..
There are no PROBLEMS in the balkans RIGHT NOW! There WERE problems as you sarcastically said in the 90's!
Amazing...

My point was that a strong dictator kept them together for the entire cold war minus the last 5 years or so. after that, all hell broke loose in the 90's.

That is what will happen in Iraq. period. We cannot do anything about it. All we will do if we stay is get our guys killed in eh cross fire.

 

[SOS2008]

US should probably withdraw ASAP. Remaining seems to making a bad situation worse. Rather than becoming more stable, the area is less stable. And as for Democracy, even with the upcoming elections, the result will be far less than democracy, well as it is expressed in the US and other more-or-less democratic countries.
And interesting editorial by By KANAN MAKIYA (professor at Brandeis University and the founder of the Iraq Memory Foundation, is the author of "Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising and the Arab World."), Dec 11, NY Times assesses the problems.
. . .
but
NY Times, Dec 11

This has already proven detrimental when Rice visited Egypt before their recent elections. In an area with a history of U.S. puppets, U.S. involvement will always be suspect now.

Here's a thought -

Sphere of influence: …Currently, it is used by the more powerful nations of the world to denote the exclusive or predominant interest they may have in certain areas of the globe, especially for the purposes of national security.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0846264.html

This was the premise upon which the U.S. conducted a blockade against the U.S.S.R. in an attempt to base missiles in Cuba, for example. More recently, nations with predominant interest in their region joined together to work toward resolution with N. Korea. Certainly Turkey, Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. have an interest in stability in Iraq for purposes of their national security. And the U.S. greatly needs a solution to Iraq, preferably one with an international face, yet does not take a similar approach in this case.

This has to do with the reason for invasion in the first place. The Wolfowitz desire for direct control in the region via military bases in Iraq (strategically located between Iran and Syria), primarily for oil, partly to protect Israel, and supposedly to prevent terrorism. (For more -
http://www.rense.com/general37/decep.htm And other links per Google: http://www.google.com/scholar?q=US+...y+Bases+In+Iraq+-+Wolfowitz+(neocon+strategy))

We argue we have the right to protect our national security however we deem necessary. Since Iran is part of the “axis of evil” it goes without saying that they have no rights…hmm. But what about Turkey, Kuwait, etc. — do they not have say in what goes on in their area of the globe?

If Americans want to know why we are hated so much, this kind of hypocrisy is why. Until the U.S. stops its self-serving meddling, there will be terrorism. Until the U.S. makes clear they will end occupation of Iraq (i.e., no military bases), there will be an insurgency in Iraq. The solution is to allow these countries sovereignty and to govern themselves. We need to stop the bleeding now, and begin withdrawing troops.

 

[kleinwolf]

The job is done

is it meant : irak will be considered as a "suburb" of US ? Or just financial market considerations, or maybe just killing the dictatorial set that was governing before, and insure it won't be possible to build up a new one ?

 

[McGyver]

The Region Will NEVER be Free from Conflict or Threat - Pack It Up

I don't know what rose-colored glasses the Bush White is wearing in setting a host of unrealistic goals for Iraq, including, establishing a democracy where all residents can live peacefully and enjoy freedoms of religion and good relations with neighboring nations like Iran. Then, we all in the West can feel safe about our well being, and our futures. WRONG!

The facts are that their will never be a satisfactory level of peace in that region, just as their isn't a satisfactory level of peace and love in most any Western nation. The "facts" just don't support the optimisitic picture President Bush is painting. You know it's looking bad when the White House and pentagon are using counter-intelligence measures to create and manipulate public opinion in the middle-East. Just imagine those capabilities being used here in the U.S. to manipulate domestic agendas.

The reality is that in the 21st Century, with the spreading capabilities of WMD access, and improving coordination amongst disadent cells or even a "single cell," a small group of unhappy campers will be able to carry out some extraordinary damaging acts. In the past, our threats were Germany and Japan, comprised of an entire military fleet. But today's conflicts need only be carried out by a disadent cell with the means and motivation. Given these facts, it doesn't make sense to give one single nation so much, a disporportionate amount of attention, as we have given Iraq.

The U.S. has plenty of problems on our own plate here at home, like jobs, violence, poverty, very costly health care and housing, and a budget out of control. We need to set some better examples here at home if we want other nations around the globe to follow our lead - and that is what must happen. They need to "voluntarily" follow us by example. We cannot continue forcing nations, disadents, and radical leaders into submission. That strategy just won't fly in the 21st Century since the masses know it takes but a few angry disadents or cells to carry out real devastation.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't know what rose-colored glasses the Bush White is wearing in setting a host of unrealistic goals for Iraq, including, establishing a democracy where all residents can live peacefully and enjoy freedoms of religion and good relations with neighboring nations like Iran. Then, we all in the West can feel safe about our well being, and our futures. WRONG!.

Agreed. Aside from the ever-changing reasons for invading Iraq, and the most recent reason that Iraq will become a democracy, the Bush WH has raised the stakes even higher. They are claiming that Iraq’s example will result in the spread of democracy throughout the region. Then there will be peace, because democracy results in peace.

1) Iraq will become a democracy
2) Democracy will spread
3) Peace will result from the spread of democracy

Assuming Americans understand this evolution is VERY optimistic, where is the empirical evidence that any of this can be deduced? I for one do not have a short memory, and I’ll continue to hold the Bush cabal to these incredible claims.

You know it's looking bad when the White House and pentagon are using counter-intelligence measures to create and manipulate public opinion in the middle-East. Just imagine those capabilities being used here in the U.S. to manipulate domestic agendas.

The propaganda competition has taken place for many a war, and personally I feel it is necessary to try to do something to counter the lack of real journalism in the ME. The problem is I trust the Bush administration as far as I could throw it. I can't rely on them to print “truth and honesty” in defense of the U.S. Which brings me to the second point. I can't because those capabilities are being used here in the U.S., and it has not been truthful or honest by any means.

Unfortunately most Americans are attracted to simplistic proposals. I find it interesting that right-wing fundamentalists believe a conservative Supreme Court will automatically end abortion, pornography, and all the threats against family values that they perceive. I think they are going to be in for some disappointment.

And then perhaps they will the wake up and realize all the time they were obsessed with abortion and other evils like Saddam, we neglected:

“problems on our own plate here at home, like jobs, violence, poverty, very costly health care and housing, and a budget out of control.”

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know what rose-colored glasses the Bush White is wearing in setting a host of unrealistic goals for Iraq, including...

The facts are that their will never be a satisfactory level of peace in that region, just as their isn't a satisfactory level of peace and love in most any Western nation. [emphasis added]

Don't you think you are setting the bar a little high? - or, at least, higher than Bush would? I tend to doubt Bush is implying that Iraq will become better off than the US or Western Europe - that wouldn't even make sense.

 

[russ_watters]

If Americans want to know why we are hated so much, this kind of hypocrisy is why. Until the U.S. stops its self-serving meddling, there will be terrorism. Until the U.S. makes clear they will end occupation of Iraq (i.e., no military bases), there will be an insurgency in Iraq. The solution is to allow these countries sovereignty and to govern themselves. We need to stop the bleeding now, and begin withdrawing troops.

There must be another reason. Terrosim far predates Bush and other countries (the USSR, France) meddled far more in the countries in their sphere of influence than the US.

edit: Heck, Al Qaeda rose to power under Clinton and Clinton was relatively isolationist and well-liked by the rest of the world.

 

[Skyhunter]

There must be another reason. Terrosim far predates Bush and other countries (the USSR, France) meddled far more in the countries in their sphere of influence than the US.
edit: Heck, Al Qaeda rose to power under Clinton and Clinton was relatively isolationist and well-liked by the rest of the world.

Modern terrorism has it's roots in Algeria, against the French. I remember one of the Algerian rebel leaders during negotiations when they were called cowardly for smuggling bombs into the cities in their women's hand baskets.

He responded by saying, and I paraphrase;

"Is it not also cowardly to drop bombs from from airplanes?

"I'll make you a deal. You give us your airplanes, and we'll give you our women's hand baskets."

Al Qaeda rose from the Afghan Mujahideen. They attacked the US because of the bases we had in Saudi Arabia.

And guess what?

It worked. We don't have bases in Saudi Arabia anymore.

And now we are fighting the same kind of war that helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Bush has given Osama bin Laden everything he wanted.

What a sucker play.

Or is it intentional?

Remember, Bush's first business partner was Osama's uncle.

Kinda makes you wonder sometimes?

 

[McGyver]

Don't you think you are setting the bar a little high? - or, at least, higher than Bush would? I tend to doubt Bush is implying that Iraq will become better off than the US or Western Europe - that wouldn't even make sense.

Not really. England, France, Russia, and the U.S. all face the sizable risks of uprisings from domestic causes. France's troubles more recently have been well publicized. In the U.S., once peaceful topics such as abortion rights and free trade have turned ugly. The U.S. has a rising crime rate, increased outsourcing of jobs, and rampant illegal imigration. It is only a "matter of time" for a particular issue, cause, or need to rise to a level triggering an outbreak of violence.

The Bush White House is stuck in a foxhole over in Iraq. He changes his goals and "winning" agenda now almost week to week. Most recently, he had admitted his adminisitration's major intelligence failures, and "post Murtha" has modified his goals to more closely match Murtha's war observations. In all, the Iraq can best be described as a very poor use of resources and planning to address a long lingering problem in Saddam Hussein. Before we invaded, Iraq had no active terrorism program. And Saddam was essentially held in check by Iran and the U.N santions. All in all, it's been an ill advised strategy for fighting Al Queda based terrorism.

 

[russ_watters]

It worked. We don't have bases in Saudi Arabia anymore.

We did that because of Bin Laden? No, I'm pretty sure those troops had somewhere else to be...

And now we are fighting the same kind of war that helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Cold War had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The USSR collapsed because of internal economic problems, not it's little war in Afghanistan

Bush has given Osama bin Laden everything he wanted.
What a sucker play.

Have you read Bin Laden's letter of demands? Bush has not converted to Islam, as far as I know.

Remember, Bush's first business partner was Osama's uncle.
Kinda makes you wonder sometimes?

No, it really doesn't.

 

[russ_watters]

Not really. England, France, Russia, and the U.S. all face the sizable risks of uprisings from domestic causes.

They do? Since when?? (exception: Russia, but it still has not recovered from communism and doesn't apply here - it isn't one of the typical western democracies and you shouldn't have included it) It's been close to 150 years since the last time the US was in danger of coming apart. Nothing since then even comes close and we are more stable today than even 40 years ago.

France's troubles more recently have been well publicized.

France's troubles are orders of magnitude smaller than what Iraq has ahead of it and orders of magnitude below what would be needed to cause disintegration of the country.

In the U.S., once peaceful topics such as abortion rights and free trade have turned ugly.

Ugly, how? People are using harsh language? How is it today compared with the 60's? I think you need to read some history.

The U.S. has a rising crime rate

Not in any long term trend it doesn't, and not anywhere near what you find in countries like Iraq.

...increased outsourcing of jobs, and rampant illegal imigration.

Those have nothing to do with anything.

It is only a "matter of time" for a particular issue, cause, or need to rise to a level triggering an outbreak of violence.

A quick review of history shows that that is absurd for making a comparison with a country like Iraq. Jeez, if you think the US is unstable (the US has the oldest government on earth), what countries do you consider stable?

Honestly, I don't know what the place you want to live in looks like, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't exist today, and actually has never existed in the history of the world, so it is unreasonable to require that Iraq become it to be considered a success. It just plain makes no sense unless you are trying to purposely set up a failure by setting the standards impossibly - in this case, nonexistently - high. And again, this fantasy is yours, not Bush's, so you can't say Bush failed by not obtaining it. If Bush sets the standard at Germany 50 years after WWII, then if Iraq in 50 years is like Germany is today, he succeeded in accomplishing his goal.

Besides, you are treating all civil unrest as if it were equal. It isn't. Demonstrators are not equivalent to (or necessarily precursors to) rioters, rioters are not equivalent to revolutionaries. And today, we haven't even had a major riot in something like 13 years - and those were just because of a video-taped beating of a druggie by some dumb cops. That's not the stuff revolutions are made of.

The Bush White House is stuck in a foxhole over in Iraq. He changes his goals and "winning" agenda now almost week to week.

You guys keep saying that, but I only know of about 3 (4? Can't remember) goals and they are the same goals he outlined in his speech prior to the war. And SOS, you know it too - you say that all the time and I occasionally post that speech for you to reread. Freeing the Iraqi people and bringing them democracy? Yaaa, it's in there.

..."post Murtha" has modified his goals to more closely match Murtha's war observations.

It happened after so it must have happened because? No.

 

[Art]

. Jeez, if you think the US is unstable (the US has the oldest government on earth), what countries do you consider stable?

Silly nationalistic claims such as the piece I bolded above strip your post of all credibility as you are either deliberately stating a supposed fact which you know to be untrue or you are seriously uninformed.

 

[Skyhunter]

We did that because of Bin Laden? No, I'm pretty sure those troops had somewhere else to be...

Because of Bush's reaction to 9/11. Mission accomplished. I rest my case.

The Cold War had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The USSR collapsed because of internal economic problems, not it's little war in Afghanistan

Internal economic problems exacerbated by a costly war of attrition. I am not trying to say the war was "the cause" but it was a significant contributing factor.

Have you read Bin Laden's letter of demands? Bush has not converted to Islam, as far as I know.

OK I will concede that point He has only given him most of what he wants.

No, it really doesn't.

So what does make you wonder?

 

[Astronuc]

“We once lived in a good place, but that was before the war. It got expensive after the war so we moved out. Now everything costs so much. The rents are too high. Food is not cheap. My husband can’t find work, so we live here. This war did little to help us. We are worse now than before. And to make matters worse, I am pregnant again.”
- NAHAD JABAR JOUAD, Living in an abandoned building with her husband and children

The Face and Voice of Civilian Sacrifice in Iraq
By JOHN F. BURNS

IN Iraq, nobody knows, and few in authority seem concerned to count, just how many civilians have been killed and injured. Soon it will be three years since the American-led invasion. The estimates of those killed run into the tens of thousands, the numbers of wounded two or three times the number who lost their lives. Even President Bush, estimating recently that 30,000 civilians may have been killed, acknowledged that was no more than an abstraction from unofficial calculations, not a Pentagon count.

To take his own measure of the war for The New York Times, Adam Nadel broke from the compulsions that dictate the days of many photographers in Baghdad, the suicide bombings and roadside explosions and assassinations that fill the morgues and the hospitals. Over weeks, he went in search of those who had survived attacks, and others whose lives had been upended by the violence. He visited them in their hospital wards, in their neighborhoods, and in their homes, and captured, in images and in words, what the war has meant for them.

Their portraits and their stories compel attention, not because they have endured worse than others, but because their miseries are so commonplace, because they stand for what thousands of Iraqi families have endured, directly or through ties of community and tribe. In his or her own way, each of these survivors is a totem for all, in a war where nobody has an exemption from the bombs and the bullets and the carelessness, or mischance, that determines who lives and who dies.

To these Iraqis, the debate over whether the war has been just or unjust, whether the blame lies with Saddam Hussein, or the Americans, or the insurgents, is a distant thing, carrying no promise of relief from their pain. Their faces, like their words, speak of what they have lost, but also, mutely, of their struggle to find new meaning in their lives, to fill the void that war's impact on noncombatants has always made of hope.

“The police officer had sustained three injuries to the chest. The wounds were the result of a terror attack. Vital signs unstable. He was seriously injured. He was dying. There were eight doctors working on him; three were specialists. When he was declared dead, his fellow officers attacked the doctors and nurses. They blamed us for his death. They then destroyed our emergency room. In the last few months, such attacks have become the norm.”
- DR. AHMED MUTHAFAR, Emergency room doctor

“After the shooting stopped, the American convoy continued driving. I thought only the driver was hit. His injuries were serious but not life threatening. When I looked into the back seat, I found my wife and two children covered in blood. I realized my wife was dead. My daughter was dead. I tried to lift my daughter. Parts of her brain fell from the wound on the side of her head. My baby boy was covered with blood and wounds. He survived. I don’t know why the Americans shot at us.”
- AHMED MOAYDA, WITH HIS SON, HAMZA
Said his family was fired on by an American convoy as they were traveling by car from Baghdad to Jordan

NY Times, Dec 26, 2005

 

[NewScientist]

"If you leave me now, you take away the very heart of me"

Iraq has lost nigh on all of its professionals and intellectuals with the outbreak of war and the following insurgency. This has led to doctors, engineers, pharmicuticals and other key people running from Iraq like Colin Jackson (a British athlete). They do not wish to live in fear with poor electricity, water and security, they do not want their children to live in that sort of environment - and seriously would you?

If US and allied troops withdraw now without the Iraqi security services being ready and indeed able to take over policing roles, horrific ciolence WILL ensue and as a result the international organisations which are helping in Iraq will leave very quickly, Iraq will have no way to make itself survive, she will be raped by the countries surrounding her or ripped apart by factions within.

America perhaps should not have entered, and perhaps they have caused huge amounts of unnecassary violence, but they are there now and it is their duty, as a free state of a humanist world, to stay and help rebuild the country that today lies in tatters and help it realign itself with that historical reputations it holds so passionatly and not to run like a child to the hills.

Jst my 2 cents

NS

 

[SOS2008]

America perhaps should not have entered, and perhaps they have caused huge amounts of unnecassary violence, but they are there now and it is their duty, as a free state of a humanist world, to stay and help rebuild the country that today lies in tatters and help it realign itself with that historical reputations it holds so passionatly and not to run like a child to the hills.

I've yet to hear anyone say we should "cut and run." That's just more of the same old Republican spin we've had to endure since Bush became president.

In the meantime, following the recent election in Iraq, the large demonstrations and continuing violence are not a good sign:

WASHINGTON: Iran has won a scintillating victory in the December 15 elections in Iraq, according to one noted expert.

Robert Dreyfuss, author of ‘Devil’s Game’, a new book that holds the United States the principal architect of Islamist extremism because of its misguided policies, maintains that the “last hope for peace” in Iraq was stomped out with the victory of the Shiite religious coalition, made up of “a fanatical band of fundamentalist Shiite parties backed by Iran, above all to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)”. The coalition would create a “theocratic bastion state in its southern Iraqi fiefdom and use its power in Baghdad to rule what’s left of the Iraqi state by force,” he predicts. He finds no “silver lining” in the situation, nor a chance for peace talks among Iraq’s factions, or international mediation. There is no centrist force that can bridge the factional or sectarian divides, he says. The next step, he predicts, is civil war.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C28%5Cstory_28-12-2005_pg7_2

Which has led to this:

International Team to Review Iraq Elections

NPR.org, December 29, 2005 · BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An international team has agreed to review Iraq's parliamentary elections, announcing Thursday members would travel to Iraq in response to complaints and protests by Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups that the polls were tainted by fraud.

The International Mission for Iraqi Elections will include two representatives from the League of Arab States, one executive member of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians and a respected European academic, the group said Thursday.

The team will travel to Iraq after an invitation from the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, which asked for the review after saying it had had nothing to hide.

The invitation to review the process and about 1,500 complaints lodged by candidates and parties was welcomed by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who said "these experts will be arriving immediately and we are ready to assist them, if needed."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5074276

Though monitors from the UN felt there was no fraud, of course the U.S. would welcome a review since we don’t want to see a Shiite Islamic theocracy (such as in Iran) come to power in Iraq. Thank goodness the group does not appear to be from the U.S.--otherwise I would not trust it (sad).

What if the the majority of Iraqis did elect Shiite Islamic leaders? Then this is predicted:

Dreyfuss calls the likely next prime minister, Adel Abdel Mahdi, “a smooth-talking SCIRI thug”. His boss, Abdel Aziz Hakim of SCIRI, he points out, is the former commander of the Badr Brigade and a militant cleric who has issued “bloodthirsty calls for a no-holds-barred military solution to the insurgency”. He forecasts that scores of secret torture prisons by the SCIRI-led Iraqi ministry of the interior will proliferate, and SCIRI-led death squads will start going down their lists of targets. “The divisive, sectarian constitution that was rammed down Iraq’s throat in October by the Shiite religious bloc will be preserved intact under the new, permanent government of Iraq led by SCIRI,” he adds.

Dreyfuss believes that the Kurds in northern Iraq will retreat further into their enclave, content to proceed step-by-step towards what they hope will be a breakaway rump state. He says that after the January 31 transitional elections, the Kurds made their deal with the Shiite coalition, winning in exchange two vital points, the first being that Iraq will have a virtually nonexistent central government; the second being that revenues from future Iraqi oil fields will go to those regions, not the state. “All the Kurds want now is to take over Kirkuk, which they will do with force, violence, and ethnic cleansing aimed at Arab residents of the Kirkuk area,” he adds.

We know we need to do something other than what we've been doing (i.e., "staying the course").

...It is the United States whose 160,000 troops prop up the Shiites in power. Washington can no longer afford to give SCIRI and its junior partner, Al Dawa, veto power over its ability to negotiate a ceasefire with the opposition in order to pull out US forces,” he maintains.

He adds that by staying on in Iraq, the US is strengthening the Shiite religious forces, enabling them to build their militia and to make plans for cleansing Sunnis from majority Shiite areas. “By getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, the United States can at the very least ensure that the Shiites do not grow all-powerful, and it might prevent a further radicalisation of the Sunni-led resistance. When there are no good options, then prudence suggests that it’s time to choose the least bad one,” he concludes.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C28%5Cstory_28-12-2005_pg7_2

With all the militias, there is no such thing as training one Iraqi force. We need to get an international face to the peacekeeping effort. We can move troops to ships offshore and to Kuwait. Then begin talks with the Sunnis, and continue to encourage a unified representational government, etc. (Of course what we really need is a new president, but with Republican control of all branches of government, that's not going happen at this time. )