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

[Astronuc]

No End in Sight
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/index.html

Nearly four years after President Bush declared an end to combat in Iraq, the country is still fraught with daily casualties, costly commitments, and an ongoing debate on how to end the violence. How did it come to this?

This week, NOW's David Brancaccio speaks with two very different, but unforgettable men who allege that U.S. bungling in Iraq created and fueled the deadly insurgency. Paul Hughes, a retired Army colonel, was part of the transition team after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He says key decisions were made that ignored the realities of Iraq. Omar Fekeiki was a Washington Post reporter and translator who risked his life to help U.S. journalists.

Both Hughes and Fekeiki are featured in a new Sundance prize-winning documentary, "No End in Sight," which exposes what it calls "a chain of critical errors, denial, and incompetence that has galvanized a violent quagmire." Fekeiki's identity was hidden in the documentary for his protection, but he chose to appear unmasked on NOW for the first time.

How Bush administration officials undermined the recovery in Iraq. Bush DOD officials ignored advice from the military. NSA Directive 24 - removed the Dep of State from the recovery of Iraq and gave it to DOD and Rumsfeld.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi Leader Breaks with U.S. Plan for Security Wall
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9783129

All Things Considered, April 23, 2007 · A clash has broken out between Iraq's prime minister and U.S. military and political leaders in Iraq over the construction of a three-mile-long concrete wall around a troubled neighborhood on the north side of Baghdad.

The Americans say the wall is necessary to combat Iraq's recent wave of bloody suicide bombings. But since the existence of the wall became known a few days ago, it has sparked intense opposition, and the prime minister said last night he was ordering construction stopped.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a visit to Cairo, called for the project to stop.

"I objected to the building of that wall," Maliki said, "and the building will stop. But it is not meant to isolate Adhamiya, only to protect it."

Residents of Adamiya, a neighborhood in northern Baghdad, took to the streets Monday to protest the 12-foot concrete wall that would encircle their neighborhood.

Protesters chanted "No, No to the wall," as they carried placards that read, "We reject this sectarian wall." Eyewitnesses put the crowd at more than a thousand.

For years, Sunni insurgents have mounted attacks from Adhamiya and sought refuge in its narrow, tangled alleyways. More recently, it has been the target of Shiite reprisal killings.

The U.S. military recently began walling off the Sunni enclave, installing check points and limiting access to the area. American officials say the wall will keep the residents safe. U.S. officials say the plan was developed in consultation with Iraqi military and police leaders.

The last statement stands in contrast to al-Maliki's view, and the fact that the Sunnis who are supposed to be protected by the wall. It seems like a no-win situation for the US.

Many Iraqis Don't Like Baghdad Wall
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766508

U.S. Troops in Baghdad Caught Between Sunnis, Shia
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9709438

Morning Edition, April 20, 2007 · American soldiers are increasingly caught in the middle of the violent sectarian struggle for Baghdad, at times facing resistance from the very government they are in Iraq to defend.

Despite the addition of more United States troops to Baghdad in a security push over the last two months, soldiers have increasingly become the target of both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias in the Iraqi capital.

Initially, both Sunnis and Shia refrained from directly confronting the growing number of American troops as they took up posts across the city. But the pause in attacks was brief, as several hundred U.S. combat troops have learned at their post on the south side of Baghdad.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/24/49/
by Scott Ritter

The ongoing hand-wringing in Congress by the newly empowered Democrats over what to do about the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the level of concern (or lack thereof) these “representatives of the people” have toward the men and women who honor us all by serving in the armed forces of the United States of America. The inability to reach consensus concerning the level of funding required or how to exercise effective oversight of the war, both constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is more a reflection of congressional cowardice and impotence than a byproduct of any heartfelt introspection over troop welfare and national security.

The issues that prompt the congressional collective to behave in such an egregious manner have more to do with a reflexive tendency to avoid any controversy that might disrupt the status quo ante regarding representative-constituent relations (i.e., re-election) than with any intellectual debate about doing the right thing. This sickening trend is bipartisan in nature, but of particular shame to the Democrats, who obtained their majority from an electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq through their votes, demanding that something be done.

Sadly, Congress’ smoke-and-mirrors approach to the Iraq war creates the impression of much activity while generating no result. Even more sadly, the majority of Americans are falling for the act, either by continuing their past trend of political disengagement or by thinking that the gesticulation and pontification taking place in Washington, D.C., actually translate into useful work. The fact is, most Americans are ill-placed intellectually, either through genuine ignorance, a lack of curiosity or a combination of both, to judge for themselves the efficacy of congressional behavior when it comes to Iraq. Congress claims to be searching for a solution to Iraq, and many Americans simply accept that this is this case.

Scott Ritter knows Iraq.

Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998.

 

[Art]

Iraqi Leader Breaks with U.S. Plan for Security Wall
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9783129
The last statement stands in contrast to al-Maliki's view, and the fact that the Sunnis who are supposed to be protected by the wall. It seems like a no-win situation for the US.

Many Iraqis Don't Like Baghdad Wall
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766508

U.S. Troops in Baghdad Caught Between Sunnis, Shia
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9709438

IMO the so-called security wall has as much to do with protecting Sunnis as the Warsaw ghetto had to do with protecting jews. It was simply intended to be a large prison.

It also appears the US are ignoring PM Maliki's instruction that the construction be halted, so much for sovereignty.

 

[Astronuc]

Could what has happened in Somalia happen in Iraq? If so, will the US government remain a permanent occupation force?

In Somalia, Those Who Feed Off Anarchy Fuel It
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/world/africa/25somalia.html

GALKAYO, Somalia — Beyond clan rivalry and Islamic fervor, an entirely different motive is helping fuel the chaos in Somalia: profit.

A whole class of opportunists — from squatter landlords to teenage gunmen for hire to vendors of out-of-date baby formula — have been feeding off the anarchy in Somalia for so long that they refuse to let go.

They do not pay taxes, their businesses are totally unregulated, and they have skills that are not necessarily geared toward a peaceful society.

In the past few weeks, some Western security officials say, these profiteers have been teaming up with clan fighters and radical Islamists to bring down Somalia’s transitional government, which is the country’s 14th attempt at organizing a central authority and ending the free-for-all of the past 16 years.

It also appears the US are ignoring PM Maliki's instruction that the construction be halted, so much for sovereignty.

Well the US had an agreement and then it didn't. Doesn't make for a stable situation. The US seemed d**ned whether they do or not! It seems like a no-win situation.

 

[jess*]

too late to pull out now so there's no choice anymore

 

[edward]

too late to pull out now so there's no choice anymore

The Bush administration has never intended to pull out of Iraq. Troops will be relocated to secure bases soon to be completed within Iraq.

Its restaurants include a Subway and a fast food pizza shop. There is a coffee shop, football pitch and even a swimming pool.

A cinema shows the latest films while the camp's main recreational centre offers special dance nights - hip hop on Friday, salsa on Saturday and country and western on Sunday.

There is even a Hertz car rental providing saloons with bullet-proof windows for those wanting to cross the base in something more comfortable than a military Humvee.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...wirq11.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/11/ixworld.ht

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html

WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.

Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.

Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.

She supported the war early on, but she has turned into a staunch critic of the administration’s performance on Iraq. She has been saying that she granted Mr. Bush the authority to go to war based on intelligence reports at the time, but that the reports have since proved wrong.

Given that Congress failed to override the veto on the supplemental spending bill for Bush's war program, it would seem rather impractical to pursue this action on the part of Clinton. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Given that Congress failed to override the veto on the supplemental spending bill for Bush's war program, it would seem rather impractical to pursue this action on the part of Clinton.

Practical for her. If the mid-term elections were a referendum on the war, then there hasn't been much practical outcome other than seeing democrats elected and the war still going on.

 

[BobG]

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html

Given that Congress failed to override the veto on the supplemental spending bill for Bush's war program, it would seem rather impractical to pursue this action on the part of Clinton. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

This is interesting. If the power to declare war resides with Congress, does the power to end a war also reside with Congress? Is a 'de-authorizing' of the war something that Bush can veto?

I think having the authority to declare war implies Congress also has the authority to end a war. I don't think it's something that the President can veto (nor do I think the President can veto a Congressional declaration of war, even if he could choose a very slow, passive method of handling a declared war).

Personally, I think we still need more than just 'let's get out'. That strategy sounds about as well thought out as Bush's decision to invade Iraq in the first place. We still need to have some idea of what happens after we leave and how we're going to deal with it.

 

[Astronuc]

Retired generals challenge GOP in ads
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_on_re_us/generals_iraq_ads

CONCORD, N.H. - Three retired generals challenged a dozen members of Congress in a new ad campaign Wednesday, saying the politicians can't expect to win re-election if they support President Bush's policies in Iraq.

"I am outraged, as are the majority of Americans. I'm a lifelong Republican, but it's past time for change," retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste told reporters.

"Our strategy in Iraq today is more of the same, a slow grind to nowhere which totally ignores the reality of Iraq and the lessons of history," Batiste said. "Our president ignores sound military advice and surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates."

Batiste and Paul Eaton, also a retired major general, are featured in the ads by VoteVets.org. They challenge the president's argument that he listens to his commanders on the ground in Iraq and say the president's Iraq policies endanger U.S. security.

"The fact is, the president has never listened to the soldiers on the ground effectively," said retired NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004. "This administration is not listening to the troops and is not supporting them."

I have great respect for Batiste, who's been there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One thing that really sickens me is that for the price of an unnecessary war, we could reduce our dependence on oil enough to be done with the ME.
http://costofwar.com/

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently it is the position of the US government (or primarily the Bush administration) that Iraq is a democracy and therefore, there is no reason that Iraqis should leave, and in fact, the US has been trying to encourage Iraqis to return to Iraq. Consequently, it is difficult for Iraqis to emigrate to the US, even for reasons of asylum.

The sectarian conflict is indeed a civil war with various groups vying for political, social and economic control - and using violence to do so. There certainly evidence of outsiders (foreigners/non-Iraqis) being involved, but there has to be complicity with Iraqis within Iraq.

There certainly appears to be groups, perhaps mostly urban professionals, who want a democratic and free society, but they seem to be a minority, and they are the ones who are being targeted for assassination and indimidation.

Bush and his people created this situation, and they must take responsibility for it and take appropriate action.

American Reporter Steven Vincent and his translator Nour Al Khal were putting their lives on the line each day in Iraq to uncover the truth about sectarian violence. In August 2005 they were kidnapped by the very people they had been reporting on. Vincent was shot dead, becoming the first U.S. journalist murdered in Iraq.

Now Vincent's widow, Lisa Ramaci, is doing everything she can to bring Nour to safety in the U.S. . . . .

But Ramaci is facing an uphill battle, as the U.S. denies the entry of thousands of Iraqis like Nour who helped Americans in Iraq. In fact, only 466 Iraqi refugees have been permitted into the U.S. since the war began in 2003. What's next for Nour and millions of other refugees who are overwhelming cities across the Middle East?

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/318/index.html

 

[Skyhunter]

I was just listening to the http://www.airamerica.com/thomhartmannpage/ . He was replaying some of the speeches Bush gave to sell the war, contrasted to the time-line of and revelations from George Tenent's book. Bush was lying, there is little doubt that unless he was totally out of the loop, he knew that the words he was speaking were untrue.

So we are there under false pretenses.

Why is the situation so bad now 4 years later?

Was it by design?

Yes IMO.

The disaster that is the Iraq occupation is the result of right wing ideologues, who believe that free markets, and complete privatization of the commons will bring about a democratic Utopia. There were 2 plans for Iraq, one before 9/11 and one that was hastily installed after 9/11.

Instead of an in-and-out invasion supported by Colin Powell, the plan changed to invade and occupy. Establish a capitalist paradise build permanent bases, and then?

I wonder.

So General Jay Garner who had helped lead Operation Provide Comfort, that protected the Kurds in the North, was replaced by Paul Bremer in the early days of the occupation. The problem with Garner, aside from being a democrat, was that he wanted to get food, water, electricity, and other infrastructure in place and then hold elections within 90 days. Grover Norquist's free market privatization reforms, ala General Pinochet's Chile, dictated that asset sales and free market reforms must predate elections.

So the Iraq debacle is great for the corporate bottom line and as long as they can keep it us there the money spigot will stay wide open. If we manage to impose this system on the Iraqi people then it is a win for privatization, and the wealthy around the world will be able to buy a piece of Iraq's infrastructure.

Armed Madhouse, has the whole story. A must read for anyone concerned about the future of American democracy.

edit- The Iraq war has been over since Bush used an aircraft carrier for a PR stunt. We are now entering year five of the occupation of Iraq!

 

[turbo]

Bush and Rice are now talking about talking to Iran, as a way to help improve security and stability in the region. Where were those jerks years back when the Dems were calling for diplomacy and the Bushies and their right-wing cheerleaders were equating diplomacy with surrender?

 

[edward]

There was a very interesting documentary on the History channel last week. It was titled Saddam and The Third Reich. It shows how the Baath party closely followed the Nazi party philosophy.

Ironically the USA supported the Baath party when the Iraqi government became influenced by the communists.

A DVD is available online. The entire documentary is on youtube in ten minute segments. It was a great history lesson for me, others may not need one. The first segment is below.

 

[light_bulb]

i remember watching meet the press when dick cheney first appeared spouting off about centrifuges and refinement :/ and because of that disinformation and everyones passive paranoia you now have the real problem of people not forgetting getting invaded, crapped on and most likely left hanging. honestly i expect another world trade center type event to happen, you'll find not many willing to go back to the middle east to fight the same war again. it'll be a waiting game and the US will lose unless they fix the situation, it takes a long time for people to forget and they'll raise their children with hidden hatred that you won't see but you'll feel.

 

[Astronuc]

What Went Wrong with the Rebuilding of Iraq?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10204557

There is little to show for the tens of billions of dollars spent over the last four years to rebuild Iraq. Plans that began with high hopes and were aimed at improving everything from Iraq's dilapidated infrastructure to its health care and education systems have instead become mired in corruption, waste and mismanagement.

Shortly after Baghdad fell in 2003, huge contracts were awarded to several U.S. companies. Some were no-bid, such as the $1.4 billion contract handed to Halliburton to rebuild Iraq's oil industry. For other contracts, there was limited competition.

"Basically, these were contracts that said to a contractor, 'I'm going to have hundreds of projects all over the country. I'm not quite sure what those projects are going to look like,' " said Steve Schooner, the co-director of the government procurement law program at George Washington University Law School.

The idea was for the contractors to get into Iraq quickly and then await further orders, Schooner said.

The speed with which the reconstruction contracts were awarded inevitably led to some mistakes, said Earnie Robbins, a senior vice president with Parsons Corp., a California-based construction firm that was awarded a roughly $1 billion contract for projects in Iraq.

"They actually issued us a site to build a facility that, when we went to the GPS coordinates provided — or when we tried to — it was discovered that that site was actually not in Iraq; it was in Iran," said Robbins.

. . . .

The Bush administration at work - or not. Well their supporters did make a lot of money at taxpayers expense. Perhaps this is the success that Bush referred to.

Never before have so few made so much for doing so little.

One has to wonder how many new millionsaires there are because of the war.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A good debate between Dodd and Gingrich on the first half of Meet The Press this morning.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. Spy Agencies Warned of Iraqi Sects, Panel Says
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10451407

All Things Considered, May 25, 2007 · U.S. spy agencies' predictions about post-war Iraq were mostly accurate, according to a new Senate Intelligence Committee report. But several Republican senators object to conclusions in the report on pre-war intelligence assessments.

Senators and their staff considered a number of documents and previous investigations. But they relied most heavily on two papers from the National Intelligence Council — both of them previously classified — dated January 2003.

The papers looked at what the main challenges would be in a post-Saddam Iraq, and at the regional consequences of a war.

Their judgments were mostly on the mark: The authors warned about the danger of sectarian violence and said al-Qaida and Iran would try to exploit the situation.

The report was approved by a vote of 10-5, with two Republicans — Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — crossing over to vote with the Democrats.

The five Republicans who voted against the report have a number of issues with it.

It would seem the experts were ignored! That would seem to be dereliction of duty.

It also occurred to me that Bush and his administration have been careful to remove dissent, or anyone who disagreed with their views/intents to wage war in Iraq.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is a terribly difficult situation. I can listen to either side of the debate and see that each makes great points, but with no definitive way to make a judgement.

At least now they are starting to talk about either leaving, or sending in 300,000 more troops like we should have done in the first place. Of course the number originally suggested and tossed out by Bush and Rummy was 500,000 troops.

Again and again I have to ask, if this "war on terror" that we are allegedly fighting in Iraq is REALLY such a great threat to the U.S., then why don't we get serious and call for a draft? I have a very hard time understanding how so much could be at stake, yet we don't even flip the war switch and act like it's serious.

 

[edward]

U.S. Increases bombing in Iraq

This doesn't really surprise me but when I read the article on page 4 of my local paper I thought that it was more newsworthy than, "Paris Hilton Goes To Jail", which was on page 1.

In the first 4 1/2 months of 2007, American aircraft dropped 237 bombs and missiles in support of ground forces in Iraq, already surpassing the 229 expended in all of 2006, according to U.S. Air Force figures obtained by The Associated Press.

"Air operations over Iraq have ratcheted up significantly, in the number of sorties, the number of hours [in the air]," said Col. Joe Guastella, Air Force operations chief for the region. "It has a lot to do with increased pressure on the enemy by MNC-I" - the Multinational Corps-Iraq - "combined with more carriers."

http://www.theeagle.com/stories/060607/world_20070606025.php

 

[Astronuc]

Joint Chiefs Shuffle: Gen. Pace Out; Adm. Mullen In
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10876225
by Robert Siegel and Guy Raz

All Things Considered, June 8, 2007 · The Bush administration has announced plans to replace Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rather than risk a Senate confirmation struggle by reappointing Pace, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would recommend Adm. Mike Mullen to replace him.

Gen. Pace to Step Down as Chairman of Joint Chiefs

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he will recommend Adm. Mike Mullen, currently the chief of naval operations, to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen would replace Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who has held the post since 2005.

If formally appointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate, Mullen would replace Pace as the nation's top military officer.

Gates, speaking at a Pentagon news conference, said that Mullen has the "vision, strategic insight and integrity to lead America's armed forces."

Speaking of the JCS, why does president Bush need a War Czar or advisor on military (war?) matters. I mean we already have a SecDef and JCS - but we need yet another position (person + staff) to counsel the president, who afterall is CinC?!?

 

[Astronuc]

Pentagon Report Shows Violence in Iraq at a High
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11043078
by Renee Montagne and Guy Raz

Morning Edition, June 14, 2007 · The Pentagon's quarterly report on Iraq shows overall situation, as measured by U.S., Iraqi and civilian casualties, violence hit a three-year high between February and May.

It's not working!

I would very much like Petreaus to succeed, but he needs an effective Iraqi government, and I seriously wonder if that is possible given the sectarian conflict.

Sunni, U.S. Leaders Unite Against Al-Qaida in Ramadi
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11086554
by Rachel Martin

All Things Considered, June 14, 2007 · A senior U.S. diplomat visits Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, once the most dangerous place in Iraq for U.S. troops but now the scene of an alliance with Sunni tribal leaders bent on destroying al-Qaida in Iraq.

Interesting development.

Some Mosques Attacked, but Iraq Relatively Calm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11067921

NPR.org, June 14, 2007 · Several Sunni mosques have been attacked in apparent retaliation for the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra. At least four people were killed in the most recent violence, but increased security and a curfew kept most of Iraq calm.

Police in Basra said six people were also wounded when the Kawaz, Othman, al-Abayshi and Basra Grand mosques were hit by rocket-propelled grenades shortly after Wednesday's bombing in Samarra. Four Sunni mosques near Baghdad were also attacked several hours after the two minarets at the Askariya Shiite shrine were toppled.

Sunni insurgents were blamed for Wednesday's attack on the shrine, one of Iraq's most holy sites for Shiite Muslims. A bombing of the same mosque last year resulted in a bloody, sectarian confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis that left hundreds dead.

Immediately after the shrine was bombed, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki put Baghdad and Samarra under an indefinite curfew in hopes of heading off a wave of violence. He also restricted vehicular traffic through Baghdad, a measure that is expected to remain in place until Saturday.

They need to stop with the destroying mosques.

And some people need to stop preaching violence.

 

[kaos]

I heard ppl talk about the US govt arming sunni militia , does this make any sense at all?

 

[Astronuc]

I heard ppl talk about the US govt arming sunni militia , does this make any sense at all?

Apparently that is so. Various Iraqi Sunni groups are fighting al Qaida now, most of whom maybe foreigners (i.e. non-Iraqis).

U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html

BAGHDAD, June 10 — With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

American commanders say they have successfully tested the strategy in Anbar Province west of Baghdad and have held talks with Sunni groups in at least four areas of central and north-central Iraq where the insurgency has been strong. In some cases, the American commanders say, the Sunni groups are suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of having links to such groups. Some of these groups, they say, have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and supplies.

American officers who have engaged in what they call outreach to the Sunni groups say many of them have had past links to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia but grew disillusioned with the Islamic militants’ extremist tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. In exchange for American backing, these officials say, the Sunni groups have agreed to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American units. Commanders who have undertaken these negotiations say that in some cases, Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps.

. . . .

 

[turbo]

While this sounds like a strategy with some merit, as presented, it is an official capitulation to the desires of the Saudis, who have been financing Sunnis and have been pressuring the US to force the Iraqi government to give Sunnis a larger role in the government. The Saudis are throttling oil production to drive up the prices (and their profits) and are now maneuvering this administration into financing the same groups that have been responsible for the killing of many, many US troops. Follow the money.

 

[Astronuc]

And the Saudis, or those who support the royal family and the status, are opposed to al Qaida.

 

[Astronuc]

Journalist Thomas Ricks on the Latest from Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11186451

Fresh Air from WHYY, June 19, 2007 · Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks — author of the bestseller Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq — talks about his latest trip to that country and the latest strategies the Pentagon is employing there. Ricks, a Pulitzer Prize winner and former Wall Street Journal staffer, is also author of Making the Corps and A Soldier's Duty.

Pretty sobering assessment of the situation in Iraq.

 

[Andre]

Sorry, I have not studied this thread, so it may have been discussed already but perhaps it's good to mention it. I have been at a course / informal seminar about this recently and spoke with several people who have been in ISAF units several time and their observations are unaminous. The US Army fighting machine is excellent at winning wars but the characteristics which are needed for that, are highly unsuitable for winning the peace.

The suggestions of the movies that GI's are turned into aggressive procedure robots, apparently emotionless with no initiative, has been confirmed in reality. It seems that if you happen to run into a moving Army convoy from behind, at at a certain distance, the guns are aimed at you, regardless if you drive a clearly marked ISAF vehicle. Inquiry after that behavior revealed: "standard operating procedures". That's not really reassuring for the locals.

There are other armies over there in that region, who do not routinely carry the guns Rambo-like ready to fire. Neither do they wear sunglasses unable to make eye contact for non-verbal communication. Instead they talk with the local people, show sympathy and emotion, do them little favors, assisting in cleaning up the mess and rebuilding schools and hospitals.

Might that make the difference?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That was the plan all along. We have already spent billions rebuilding the infrastructure, but with the constant attacks on US troops and the oil supply, which was supposed to help fund the rebuilding, we can't make much progress.

It's a little tough to put down your gun when people are shooting at you and taking out check points with car bombs.

This all falls squarely on the Bush admin and their terrible mismanagement of this unnecessary war. Many Americans believe that this is the worst foreign policy disaster in US history - I believe there can be no doubt about this any longer. It is a disaster. We are infinitely sympathetic to the innocent people caught in the middle of this, but soldiers become hardened with time, and most of our soldiers have been there far longer than is reasonable. It is estimated that 30% of the returning troops have psychological problems due to the sustained trauma of warfare.

 

[Andre]

The problem is the threat and violence spiral up. Immediately after the war part of the war, the locals were grateful for the termination of the dictatorial regime. It won't help exploiting that further with un-communicating sunglasses with loaded guns, driving around in tanks. most certainly one could have expected terrorist retalliation. But it would make a huge difference if the locals saw the GI as liberaters rather than yet another round of oppression.

 

[baywax]

Wtf did the Iraqi people ever do to the US?

 

[turbo]

Wtf did the Iraqi people ever do to the US?

Nothing. They suffered and died under the rule of Saddam, when he was Reagan/Bush's favorite bully-boy, and when he had out-lived his usefulness in protecting the Saudis and Kuwaitis from religious extremists, he was cast aside. The role of the Reagan/Bush government in supplying him with chemical weapons and satellite intelligence has been quietly covered up. Bush I failed to kill him off, so the task fell to Bush II and his neocon buddies. People who can't see beyond 9-11 are too ignorant to put the pieces together.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The problem is the threat and violence spiral up. Immediately after the war part of the war, the locals were grateful for the termination of the dictatorial regime. It won't help exploiting that further with un-communicating sunglasses with loaded guns, driving around in tanks. most certainly one could have expected terrorist retalliation. But it would make a huge difference if the locals saw the GI as liberaters rather than yet another round of oppression.

Frankly we're stuck in a catch 22. It is too dangerous to put down the guns and park the tanks, and our primary role is now to police the country and try to support the elected government, but our very presense helps to incite the violence. And if we leave we fear that the scale of the disaster will only get worse. The argument that you make is generally recognized but there is no agreement on the best way to proceed. However, your point about the sunglasses is unique and I can see where it might have an impact. They are just another barrier between the troops and the people we are trying to protect.

At this point the insurgency is only a fraction of the problem and the sectarian violence is probably unavoidable. Meanwhile, the people most needed to help rebuild the country - educated professionals of all kinds - are leaving Iraq as fast as possible.

Kofi Annan said it best: We're in a position where [as a military force] we can't leave and we can't stay.