This was posted by Wu Wei on the previous thread:If this article is true, it would be the most important step in the War on Terror since going into Iraq.
The article is a week old and from a supposedly "nonpartisan" magazine. It focuses on Bush's new Iran policy, but part of that is something even more important. The article claims that all the players, including Israel, the Saudis and the US(?), have taken sides in the Sunni / Shiite conflict. So if this is true, and the alliance is as solid as the article claims, we may have moved into a World War III like situation where various nations are lining up against each other.
There is good and bad news.
The bad news is that some in the Administration are saying that our raids have not yet find the evidence against Iran which we expected.
Contrary to some initial reports that American troops had found damning maps and documents on the detained Iranians, some U.S. government sources indicate that the Hakim raid did not produce definitive proof of Iranian involvement in supplying Iraqi militants. "They are trying to walk this back," one U.S. official said. "There are no smoking guns about Iran in Iraq," said another knowledgeable U.S. source. "That's the problem. Sort of like the WMD."
The good news is they confirm that Bush IS getting tougher on Iran.
U.S. officials, who asked not to be identified, say that the Iran policy has expanded from focusing chiefly on Iran's nuclear ambitions to challenging Tehran's suspected misbehavior across the Middle East. Indeed, one source said succinctly that the new policy is geared to "confront Iran in every way but direct armed conflict, using all means short of war." ...
Under the new policy, the United States will aggressively seek to expose and confront Iranian networks thought to be supplying radical proxies in Iraq, U.S. sources involved with the policy said. In addition, the U.S. is doubling its naval power in the Persian Gulf, considering covert ways to counter Hezbollah in Lebanon, and sending Patriot missiles to jittery allies in the Gulf. Bush administration officials are "projecting a lot of confrontation with Iran," says one American source privy to the administration's Iran policy debate who asked not to be further identified. "But they don't mean to signal war. They don't mean war. It's war by other means.
Controversial, but good news IMO, is them saying "confront Iran in every way but direct armed conflict, using all means short of war... It's war by other means" Maybe Bush has finally realized there are other ways to fight besides invasion & occupation, the same ways our enemies like Iran use.
The other good news, and one of the "other means", is that the Saudis supposedly are so scared of the Iranians that they have switched sides. In fact the article even talks about the emerging Washington-Saudi-Sunni-Israeli alliance with Jordan and Egypt also included. Some evidence:
Clawson cited Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's very positive public reference about the Saudi role in helping to promote peace. "It was extraordinarily unusual for an Israeli prime minister to refer to three helpful countries" -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. "That was no accident. It was carefully worked out language." The Israeli media recently reported speculation about a rare meeting between Israeli and Saudi officials.
Dick Cheney's Christmas flight to Saudi Arabia sounds like part of this. The Saudis are already taking action, according to the article, in fact the Saudis are said to be the one secretly supporting Fatah in the civil war in Palestine!
Among the steps the Saudis now appear ready to take, according to Clawson, is to significantly fund Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has faced an upsurge in intra-Palestinian violence incited by Hamas, which is supported by Syria and Iran.
Here is more about the alliance
The first is the emergence of a Saudi-led coalition of Sunni Arab governments, plus Israel, all of which are alarmed at Iran's flexing of power in the region and, in particular, at Tehran-backed Hezbollah's efforts to bring down the government in Lebanon. In addition, this loose coalition fears Iran's possible role in supporting militant proxy groups that threaten to destabilize other countries, specifically Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Shiite groups in the Gulf States, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
If Saudi Arabia is now an allie in the war on terror, would that mean that they stop funding extremism?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't Shiites that flew the airliners on 9/11.
gets confusing in ME.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the architects that built the temple of multi-culturism? Luxuriating in the temporal waters of diversity no doubt, it is our secret to strength, right?
ReplyDeleteFrom The Telegraph:
..."Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
In some countries, people found guilty under sharia law face penalties such as beheading, stoning, the severing of a hand or being lashed.
The study, by the Right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange, also found a significant minority who expressed backing for Islamic terrorism.
One in eight young Muslims said they admired groups such as al-Qa'eda that "are prepared to fight the West".
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
beautifully said bob.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this is a benefit from the alliance with the Sunnis / Saudis?
ReplyDeleteSunnis Help in Anbar
Before tribal sheiks aligned themselves with U.S. forces in the violent deserts of western Iraq, the number of people willing to become police officers in the city of Ramadi ... might not have filled a single police pickup...
With the help of a confederation of about 50 Sunni Muslim tribal sheiks, the U.S. military recruited more than 800 police officers in December and is on track to do the same this month. Officers credit the sheiks' cooperation for the diminishing violence in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province.
"I don't want to paint too rosy a picture, but if you compare this to what it was seven or eight months ago, there is not a place in this city that al-Qaeda controls," said Lt. Col. James Lechner, deputy commander of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, in Ramadi.
Between July and December, the number of roadside bombings and incidents involving indirect fire, such as mortar attacks, dropped by about 50 percent in Ramadi, according to the U.S. military. Many al-Qaeda fighters lived in the suburbs of Ramadi and attacked in the city. But "the sheiks have sent their men out there and secured that," Lechner said.
ReplyDeleteBut Anbar is still the wild west.
This month, the [sheik] confederation and U.S. officials held what they called the first Ramadi reconstruction conference in the compound of the leader of the Awakening, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi. The American soldiers parked their Humvees in a gravel lot near some camels and a flock of sheep and left their combat boots on the porch as a sign of respect for the sheiks...
As if to underscore the local antagonism toward the sheiks, a missile crashed outside the wall of the compound, briefly interrupting Sattar's speech.
The" bad "news is that" some "in the Administration are saying that our raids have not yet find the evidence against Iran which we expected.
ReplyDeleteContrary to some initial reports that American troops had found damning maps and documents on the detained Iranians, "some" U.S. government sources indicate that the Hakim raid did not produce definitive proof of Iranian involvement in supplying Iraqi militants. "They are trying to walk this back," one U.S. official said. "There are no smoking guns about Iran in Iraq," said another knowledgeable U.S. source. "That's the problem. Sort of like the WMD."
---
Sounds like BAD BS from "some"bodies.
plus a
ReplyDelete"knowledgeable U.S. source"
- Probably the world's greatest anonymous source on missing smoking guns.
The BBC also said that there was "no 'smoking gun' about weapons supplies or attacks on coalition forces". The actual purpose of the Iran / Iraq meeting which the US raided was to discuss the Iraqi government and politics.
ReplyDelete"There were five senior officers in various Iranian intelligence organisations... it was a very significant meeting... these people have been collared, relatively speaking, up to no good," an unnamed British official told the programme.
Officials told Newsnight the arrests produced highly important intelligence, but no "smoking gun" about weapons supplies or attacks on coalition forces.
They said that the arrested men were in Iraq to hold high-level meeting with representatives of several Iraqi Shia factions.
"There was discussion of whether the [Prime Minister Nouri] Maliki government would succeed, who should be in which ministerial jobs," one official told the programme.
IMO it is obvious that the Bush Administration is down playing Sunni terrorism, so it makes sense that they would be exaggerating Iran's role.
I remember back when after 9/11, that Al Qaeda was the evil enemy, the one we were told would end Western civilization. Now the only ones who remember Al Qaeda are our troops who actually are fighting them.
Instead the Bush Administration has now decided that Iran is the threat, not Al Qaeda. Sunni terrorism is ignored and down played. All the talk is of Maliki and al-Sadr. If the Sunnis and Shiites both make the same kind of terrorist attack in Iraq, we are told that the Shiites are terrible, but that the Iraqi Sunnis are helpless victims of foreign Al Qaeda, unable to prevent the attacks. Alleged arms sales from Iran is said to be a cause for war, while weapons transfers from Sunni countries are ignored.
Maybe it makes sense for the Administration to do this as part of the Sunni / Saudi alliance, but I certainly don't trust anything they say about Iran.
Judging from what's happening in Pakistan right now, I am convinced that if Iran were to be removed, the KSA will have absolutely no problems perpetuating their ideology through the destabilisation of other regimes.
ReplyDeleteThe Taliban in Waziristan is as much our problem as Afghanistan's, and even Pakistan's, however Musharraf wants to delude himself. As we prep for a confrontation with Iran, the KSA is comfortably assured that with the current oil strategy and our implicit "promise" to the Saudis, they will be free to continue sowing their seeds of fundamentalism everywhere else.
Whatever wu wei may have mentioned about a Sunni-US-Israel alliance against Iran-Syria, this is an imbalance of power: Bush will find that keeping the five balls in the air like Bismarck did might be tricky, but the single ball of the KSA will prove too heavy to juggle.
The Iranian connection?
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration has a "mountain of evidence" of Iranian involvement in Iraq, state department spokesman Sean McCormack said. It hopes to make public as much of the dossier as possible, ideally this week.
But some U.S. officials believe Iran's influence is being exaggerated in order to divert the blame for deteriorating security in Iraq, where more than 150 Iraqis were killed by bomb attacks last week, and seven American soldiers in the past three days.
The sharp criticism of Iran is also designed to persuade Sunni powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt that America is attentive to their interests in the region.
Differing accounts of reports whether they truly did find anything incriminating regarding Iran - sadly, the Saudis couldn't care less about the proof, and have already begun cutting oil prices as a preemptive strategy. We should take a step back and figure out what our stand is before the "alliance" veers a little too far off - when we're doing all the dirty work for the Saudis and getting our troops killed again, either through Iranian proxies or Wahhabists.
You two guys are too young to remember, but in the Cuban Missile crisis , Adlai Stevenson was the US UN representative. At the UN, Stevenson did not just say he had the evidence, he presented it and to the satisfaction of those that mattered at the time.U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson attempted to force an answer from Soviet Ambassador Valerian Zorin as to the existence of the weapons, famously demanding, "Don't wait for the translation!" Upon Zorin's refusal, Stevenson produced photographs taken by U.S. surveillance aircraft showing the missile installations in Cuba.
ReplyDeleteIf there is so much evidence and so much is at stake, it would make sense that it would be shown and not talked about.
There has been plenty of evidence of Iranian "involvement" for
ReplyDelete30 YEARS.
---
Gawd knows how long the Sunnis have been training/funding Terrorists
---
They are not mutually exclusive.
---
Adlai sounded like Jack D. Ripper or Gen Curtis LeMay compared to Bush and his lackies.
All that proves is "What is"
(as expressed by Truman or Adlai/aka Jack D. Ripper)
IS WHAT WAS!
(and enemies knew we'd usually back them up)
(not counting Korea, our first UN misadventure)
"What is" usually Is'NOT in today's world since everyone knows threats are usually not to be taken seriously.
Does anyone really dispute Iran has been screwing us for 30 years?
ReplyDeleteNo dispute, but Bush needs to put up the goods or he will make Iran look like a victim.
ReplyDeleteNeeds to ACT on them, as long as the Dems have't stopped him, YET.
ReplyDeleteThe Khobar Towers and everything else is already out there, as are the Iranian "IEDs"
...But the postmodern "World Community"
and the modern Left here
accepts no evidence that does not suit their Porpuises.
...and Bush seemingly takes orders from State and other Arabists for the last three years.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Libya, where they quit being mean to us, but still screw Doctors, et al that are trying to work on the AIDS epidemic.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding me, Bobaal, I need to look up and see what the outcome was for those Doctors.
Also talk to someone we know here that is just back from Libya where he picked up his wife.
(wonder what the culture shock will be like for her!)
? Anybody know what happened? ?
ReplyDeleteScientists Urge New Trial in Libya AIDS Case
ROME, Nov. 4 — With five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor on trial in Tripoli on charges that they spread H.I.V. to 426 Libyan children, hundreds of prominent scientists are rallying in their defense, calling for a new and fairer trial.
The nurses and doctor were foreign experts working at Al Fateh Children’s Hospital in Benghazi, Libya, in 1998, when an outbreak of H.I.V. was detected at the hospital.
For years, Libyan authorities, including the country’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, blamed the foreigners for the outbreak, suggesting that they had intentionally injected Libya’s children with the virus. But a 2003 independent scientific report on the outbreak, by two of Europe’s most prominent AIDS experts who spent many weeks in Libya reviewing the evidence, concluded that poor sanitary practices at the hospital were to blame.
Despite that report, which was commissioned by the Libyan government, the six have been in prison in Libya since their arrest in 1999, and they were sentenced to death in 2004.
A new trial was ordered after international protests.
The expert report was not presented at the new trial, which is now close to conclusion. On Saturday, the judge said that the six would be sentenced on Dec. 19, Reuters reported.
doug, while doctors work on the AIDS epidemic in Libya, "Dispatches" show that there are still those who believe that AIDS is a "Western weapon" against their ilk. Perhaps they see those docs as "atoning for their sins", whatever their warped, perverse psyches might be telling them.
ReplyDelete... Qadaffi Tests Bulgaria's Reaction on HIV Case - Lawyer Politics: 28 January 2007, ... on the case of the death-sentenced five Bulgarian medics are aimed at gathering maximum information ... medics will not be executed. He believes Libya is trying to plan its political moves ...
ReplyDeleteBulgaria Takes Nurses' Libyan Torturers to Court in Days 29 Jan 2007 07:43 GMT
... Bulgaria Takes Nurses' Libyan Torturers to Court in Days Politics: 29 ... they deliberately infected 426 children with the HIV virus that causes AIDS in a Benghazi hospital. At the end ...
Qaddafi's Son: No Execution of Libya-Jailed Bulgarian Medics 28 Jan 2007 22:52 GMT
... Qaddafi's Son: No Execution of Libya-Jailed Bulgarian Medics Politics: 27 January 2007, Saturday. The ... in Libya for deliberately infecting children with HIV will not be executed, the son of ...
Bulgarians in Italy Protest for Release of Libya-Jailed Nurses 28 Jan 2007 19:51 GMT
... protest against the death sentences of the Bulgarian nurses in Libya. Protesters in Rome showed their support for ... more than 400 Libyan children with the HIV virus in a hospital in Benghazi. ...
Qadaffi Plans Political Moves Observing Bulgaria's Reaction on HIV Case 28 Jan 2007 17:12 GMT
... Plans Political Moves Observing Bulgaria's Reaction on HIV Case Politics: 28 January 2007, Sunday. The ... on the case of the death-sentenced five Bulgarian medics are aimed at gathering maximum information ... medics will not be executed. He believes Libya is trying to plan its political moves ...
Quaddafi's Son: No Execution of Libya-Jailed Bulgarian Medics 28 Jan 2007 11:31 GMT
... Politics: 27 January 2007, Saturday. The five Bulgarian nurses who were sentenced to death in Libya for deliberately infecting children with HIV will not be executed, the son of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi said Saturday. Qaddafi ...
Bulgarian nurses will not be executed: Qaddafi's son 28 Jan 2007 04:36 GMT
... Bulgarian nurses will not be executed: Qaddafi's son The son of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Qaddafi has promised that ... five Bulgarian nurses in a high-profile Libyan AIDS trial, the 24 Hours newspaper reported yesterday. ...
* Bulgarian nurses will not be executed: Qaddafi's son 28 Jan 2007 04:36 GMT
... Bulgarian nurses will not be executed: Qaddafi's son The son of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Qaddafi has promised that ... five Bulgarian nurses in a high-profile Libyan AIDS trial, the 24 Hours newspaper reported yesterday. ...
Nurses to be spared execution: Gaddafi's son 27 Jan 2007 14:55 GMT
... nurses who were sentenced to death in Libya for deliberately infecting children with the HIV virus will not be executed, the son ... a hospital in the port city of AIDS experts have said that the epidemic broke ...
> when we're doing all the dirty work for the Saudis and getting our troops killed again, either through Iranian proxies or Wahhabists.
ReplyDeleteExactly. That is my fear in Iraq too. I support having alliances, but are the Sunnis doing anything for us? More importantly, is our government killing our troops by not letting them fight hard enough against Sunnis?
Iraq
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEvoWiki
ReplyDelete(Evil Wiki to some)
" More importantly, is our government killing our troops by not letting them fight hard enough again?"
ReplyDelete---
The Dems (Biden and Turban) are trying to make that illegal.
...change the initial authorization for Iraq.
> when we're doing all the dirty work for the Saudis and getting our troops killed again, either through Iranian proxies or Wahhabists.
ReplyDeleteExactly. That is my fear in Iraq too. I support having alliances, but are the Sunnis doing anything for us? More importantly, is our government killing our troops by not letting them fight hard enough against Sunnis?
Iraq is the example. The initial liberation of Iraq was one of the most successful conventional warfare ops in history. Shortly after liberation, the Shiites and Kurds wanted peace and supported or tolerated us.
Then a classic situation developed where the Sunnis, former ruling class, started an insurgency almost immediately. It was a classic insurgency, attacking the government and occupiers, but it also attacked enemy civilians.
At that point the strategy is clear cut: knock down the insurgency. There might be disagreement about the mixture of conventional & counterinsurgency ops, but the idea is pretty clear cut that insurgency = bad guys; everyone else = good guys.
Yet even though each soldier & Marine fought as hard as they could under the limitations, our government and central command never pushed as hard as they could to kill off the insurgency.
Maybe it was just a screw up, which is what most people think. But the question has to be asked, "Would the Sunnis & our government have ever allowed us to crush the insurgency and make Iraq a Shiite country?"
But when it comes time for our supposed allies to cease fire on us, as allies do, they have excuses that their hands are tied because Al Qaeda is really running the show, the Iraqi Sunnis are divided, etc.
Our supposed ally Jordan gives sanctuary to Saddam's family and others, and despite massive arms flow from Syria and the insurgent headquarters being there, the Bush Administration focused on Iran & the Shiites.
So Bush is outraged, outraged, that Iran might be giving special IEDs to Shiite militias. But the fact that the entire Sunni Insurgency is being run out of Syria isn't worth him mentioning. That's the insurgency responsible for most of our casualties, and which is the reason why the war has lasted four years.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush Administration won't even name the Sunni Insurgency as being the enemy. All the focus is on how many of al-Sadr's aides Maliki is willing to lock up.
Now you are getting the picture, wu.
ReplyDeleteMr Bush and his Team, foreign and domestic have no desire to "Win" in Iraq. They fully desire to STAY in Iraq, but refuse to admit to that reality.
So the Goals are devised to be unattainable, the Enemy constantly changing and unnamed.
The US acting as a hired gun for the Sauds.
Mr Bush is fragmenting the GOP, in his compassion for the Saudi Sunni, the Wahhabist raiders of 9-11.
You can fool all the people some of the time
ReplyDeleteSome of the people all the time
but not all the people, all the time.
Such an awakening is occuring within the GOP's faithful. It is interesting to watch, as a student of history, but a shame as a US citizen.
But then that citizenship is being devalued by Federal actions on the frontier, as they refuse to secure US borders, against infiltrations of drugs, arms & people.
Viva the New World Order.
Then, the Sauds are so clever, they get their US Policy implementations blamed upon Israel.
ReplyDeleteWho said Mr Kissinger was not a master of puppetry, he who visits the White House, weekly.
Whatever happened in the past, we are fighting to win in Iraq now. And the Shiites won't just sit and be victims any more.
ReplyDelete"Fighting to win"
ReplyDeleteWin what, against whom?
Obviously, as yesterdays battle showed conclusivly, the Iraqi are more than capable of defending themselves against aQ and the Saddanite Deadenders.
200 or 300 were KIA by the 8th Division of the Iraqi Army, with US air support.
Few Iraqi Army casualties were reported. So, in a stand up fight against the Insurgents, the Iraqi win, hands down.
They are ready.
Proof is in the pudding of combat.
There is no longer an Iraqi WMD threat.
UN Resolutions are all complied with.
The democratic Iraqi Government has emerged.
The Iraqi Army has stood up.
There are more actual aQ training bases in Warizistan than even contemplated by aQ, in Iraq, so that excuse is as bogus as they come as well.
There is no Regional War, that the US has an military interest in. When presented with that option, in 2002, the authorization of US force in the Region, it was dismissed out of hand by the Congress, not even gaining enough support to have a vote on the matter.
No, it seems, more & more, that US interest in the Insurgency in Iraq is just another name for 1984
I would like to see the response to DR 10:43. This should be good.
ReplyDeleteBill Roggio offers as good an analysis of the Najaf operation as is available. There is some confusion as to who the coalition forces were fighting. That may never be fully known. However, what may be said with complete confidence is that hundreds of belligerents are permanently dead. Yes, for them there will be no catch and release, living to fight Americans another day.
ReplyDeleteSome thought needs be given to arming the Iraqis to handle situations such as Najaf. Here, the terrorists were dug-in, well armed, and organized; consequently, deracination required the use of air and armor assets. If the US is serious about making the Iraqis responsible for taking the fight to the enemy, then, the Iraqis will need such assets of their own.
Iraqi Army battles Shia cult, Sunni insurgents in Najaf
****
The Iraqi, allen, have all the armor they need. A Bn of T-72s, complete with new ammo, was bought from the Hungarians. Also with the continued refitting of Saddam's old equipment. This has been onging for a number of years, now. The Iraqi Army could field over 100 tanks.
ReplyDeleteAs to Air Assets, we have mothballed A-10s in Tucson, AZ. Dozens of them. I'm sure that some old Cobras could also be made available.
Throw in a few Hueys, as well. The Iraqi would use them just fine.
ReplyDeletechuck in a couple of C-130 gun ships.
ReplyDeleteBetter to spend more money on F-22, F-35, airframes just made for the Iraqis,
ReplyDelete...someday in 1984.
If we have enough time, money, national sovereignty, and security to see our way through past 1984, this could get really interesting.
ReplyDeleteThank God for W and company.
"Companies"
ReplyDelete...Skulls and Bones Inc.
We don't Aim to Please,
But Please Aim,
At Us.
> Obviously, as yesterdays battle showed conclusivly, the Iraqi are more than capable of defending themselves against aQ and the Saddanite Deadenders.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. Yesterday wasn't typical because the "insurgents" were a cult, led by a rogue Ayatollah who said he was the messiah (and is now dead).
Hundreds of "soldiers" sitting in one place is conventional warfare, not guerrilla fighting. That is easy pickings for our military.
This does not mean that the Iraqi Army is capable of defending itself against external invaders, that it can stop an insurgency, and since the Army has very few Sunnis, it isn't clear if they can avoid civil war. One of the main reasons for the US to be there is as a neutral third party, someone both sides trust.
Too bad we don't.
ReplyDelete(that would be some of US)
ReplyDeleteJPOST Talkback:
ReplyDeleteMARK KLEIN, M.D. - USA
01/29/2007 15:59
Smart bombs are for dummies!
The point of war is to get the defeated enemy to dance to the victor's tune. Smart bombs guarantee defeat or stalemate because the enemy's political base, AKA THE CIVILIANS, are exempt from intentional attacks. All smart bombs do is kill the folks who've already resigned themselves to die. Duh!!!!!
That Mission, wu, is not in the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteNo where in it, th be a referee in an Iraqi Civil War. If that is the "new" Mission we need a new Authorization.
Besides, if for one minute anyone were to think the US conventional force, in Iraq, could fight the Insurgents better than the democratic Iraqi Federals, themselves, is smoking some gooood BC bud.
Language skills, cultural skills, knowledge of the Shieks, all point to the Iraqi handling themselves, better, then we have or can.
How many language experts in the "Surge", not a one. Just more conventional US troops, to police Iraqi streets. A mission both Mr Bush and Ms Rice said was destructive to the US military, in 1999.
Were they lying then, or now?
The authorization of force says:
ReplyDeleteThe President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
Self defense. If Bush feels these activities are necessary to prevent a threat posed by Iraq then we should stay. Otherwise, get out.
We shouldn't be fighting a civil war or any war ourselves in Iraq. We are guests of the Iraqis, allies who supplement their efforts. Alliances with other countries are a vital part of US security, including alliances with Arab countries which let us host our forces there and give us intelligence information about terrorists.
I, for one, would love to see a new Iraqi Authorization debated and voted upon. Much more so than meaningless sense of the Senate Resolutions
ReplyDeleteA new debate and Authorization, since the original Authorization, as I said two years ago, with rufus coming on board in December, has been fulfilled.
Assigned Mission Accomplished, even the moving Goal Post Mission of standing up an Iraqi Army has been accomplished, as the 8th Division proved yesterday.
Which is it, wu.
ReplyDeleteA new Mission or not?
You change positioms within two posts.
There is no threat to the US, in Iraq, today. No more a greater threat than exists in Pakistan.
Or the Sudan, London or Munich in each of the fore mentioned locales aQ Mohammedans are operating base camps or cells, there is no such camp in Iraq, is there?
If so, how come?
Should we send troops to Munich and London, to help our allies there?
Sauds, staging out of Germany attacked the US. We invade Iraq and threaten Iran in response.
Cool beans.
We do not need 160,000 US troops to gather this ever famous Intel. Especially troops that cannot speak the language of the country.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is reported from an Iraqi leader well known to Mr. Bush:
ReplyDelete“Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Shiite bloc in the 275-member parliament, spoke at a Shiite mosque in central Baghdad to mark Ashoura. ‘I reaffirm that the establishing of regions will help us in solving many problems that we are suffering from. Moreover, it represents the best solution for these problems,’ he said.”
ABC Link
As Westhawk has stated, the Shi’a are well able to protect themselves when permitted to do so by the US.
DR,
ReplyDeleteI think you mean the Iraqis "could" have all the weapons they need. Obviously, they do not "have" all the weapons they need; otherwise, there would have been no need for American air and armor at Najaf.
> There is no threat to the US, in Iraq, today. No more a greater threat than exists in Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteThat's your opinion. Also, Pakistan has a stable government but Iraq doesn't. How long would Maliki live if we left the Green Zone? Why can't we treat Iraq the same as we do Afghanistan, still leaving troops there, not withdrawing them?
It was always the plan to provide security until we transferred to a host government. In fact the authorization of force said the president should enforce all UN resolutions, and a UN resolution says we are supposed to do that until the end of 2007.
Everyone is agreed, including the Bush Administration, that if the Iraqis can successfully take over security, then we will reduce our forces. Maliki tried to take over security before and failed, so we'll see.
What we have given up on, and never should have been our mission anyway, is the idea of making Iraq the 51st state, that we would run it for decades, and micro-manage every part of its government. The neo-cons have lost that battle.
The stability of Pakistan is directly proportional to Musharraf 's good luck and the integrity of the armor plating on his means of conveyance while driving through his own capitol city.
ReplyDeleteBoy, wu, you never do answer a question, do you.
ReplyDeleteMust be something, to be able to ignore everything that does not fit your pattern.
Now folk over at the BC used to say that about me, but I could always field the objections to my positions, time and reality proved me to be right. Not many of the old naysayers are still around.
There are aQ bases in Pakistan, there are none in Iraq. Explain again how that makes aQ a greater threat to the US Homeland, their fighting in small numbers, in Iraq, than basing and training in a nuclear armed Pakkistan?
The General President surviving more assasination attempts, to date, then Mr Maliki.
Given the performance of the 8th Division, Mr Maliki would be at least as safe as the General President of Pakistan, without 160,000 US troops.
A body guard of such size, more than even Ceasar had. As you have said before, Mr Maliki, himself, is unimportant, if he were to be killed, another UIA man would take his place. Same old story, same old song.
The 8th proved the Iraqi Army capable in combat, the Republic of Iraq safe from any internal military threat.
If, allen, the Iraqi armor was not used in the Operation, I'd tend to think that would have been a US decision. They do have the armor, more than enough to handle the Insurgents, that was my point.
Gotta run, have a great day
One last note, the terror attacks, in Iraq, were and are, as Mr Rumsfeld said, militarily insignifigent.
ReplyDeleteAn internal police matter, for the Iraqi really. It is, after all, their country.
al-Hakim, mentioned below as a powerful Shiite leader, is rumored to be favored by the Bush Administration to replace Maliki in a "moderate" government which would oust al-Sadr's group from power.
ReplyDeleteThe Shiites at the festival want peace. Has any Sunni leader in Iraq ever condemned the killing of Shiite civilians?
Shiite Peace March
Shi'ite pilgrims called for an end to sectarian killing in Iraq as they swamped the holy city of Kerbala on Monday to commemorate the death of the Prophet Mohammad's grandson in battle there 1,300 years ago.
Some of the two million black-clad pilgrims attending the annual Ashura event sought to emphasize Muslim unity and dampen the communal tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites that have raised fears of an all-out civil war.
"Stop the bloodletting," read one banner held aloft by pilgrims; "Let us make Ashura a day for brotherhood among Iraqis," read another; "We are all Muslims," a third...
Addressing an Ashura gathering in Baghdad, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the most powerful Shi'ite political leader in Iraq, also called on Iraqis to bridge the sectarian divide.
"We are one unified people and I look to our Sunni brothers with sympathy in this war against terrorists," he said, speaking from behind bullet-proof glass.
"I condemn the killing of Sunnis just as I do Shi'ites and any other Iraqi," he said.
> As Westhawk has stated, the Shi’a are well able to protect themselves when permitted to do so by the US.
ReplyDeleteI'll believe it when the Shiites prove it. As the daily security review quoted below shows, right now the Iraqi government is not adequately protecting its people.
Daily Iraqi Security
TUZ KHURMATO - Five worshippers were killed when a rocket propelled grenade hit a Shi'ite mosque in the town of Tuz Khurmato, 70 km south of Kirkuk, police said.
BAGHDAD - Three mortars killed 11 people and wounded 28 more in Zaafaraniya, southeast of Baghdad, a police source said.
BAGHDAD - A car bomb in Hurriya, a mainly Shi'ite neighborhood in northwest Baghdad, killed one person and wounded 14 more, a police source said. Another police source said five were in killed in the attack and 25 wounded.
BAGHDAD - A bomb planted inside a minibus killed four people and wounded five others near al-Mustansiriya Square in northeastern Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed one person and wounded three others near a square in Sadr City district in eastern Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed one person and wounded three others in al-Baladiyat district in eastern Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol wounded two policemen near Qahtan Square in Qadisiya district in southwestern Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - Three university professors and a student were kidnapped in the Khadimiya district in northern Baghdad when they were on the way home from a seminar at a law college on Sunday, a Higher Education Ministry official said.
re: I'll believe it when the Shiites prove it.
ReplyDeleteHow to explain the 1.3 million Sunni who have fled Iraq?
How to explain entire Baghdad neighborhoods cleansed of Sunni?
How to explain the Saudi concerns of ethnic cleansing?
And, how to explain the thousands of Sunni corpses?
Those Sunni deaths are just reactionary, to Sunni provocation.
ReplyDeleteThat's the story, we're stickin' to it.
> How to explain entire Baghdad neighborhoods cleansed of Sunni?
ReplyDeleteRetaliation is not defense, it is offense. The slaughter of Shites continues. As I said,
> right now the Iraqi government is not adequately protecting its people.
Whether you prefer to call it defense or offense makes no difference to the Sunni cleansed neighborhoods of Baghdad.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, Shi'a continue to die. What does that have to do with ethnic cleansing?
What does it have to do with Allen? Why do you care?
ReplyDeleteMat,
ReplyDeleteI don't, but that has nothing to do with the facts.
Mat,
ReplyDeleteAny word there yet on how the bomber got in?
Sorry, Allen, I turn the news off when these things happen. I'd rather the blood vultures feast on somebody else.
ReplyDeleteAllen, the fact is that those Sunnis are very bad people. They deserve everything that's been coming their way, and more.
ReplyDeleteSilent so far - thus has been the official response to the troubles in Waziristan and other theatres of Saudi meddling ever since Iran stepped into the picture, but more so now than ever - the "mountain of evidence" that the Saudis are chancing upon as their opportunity to conveniently jump on the US bandwagon to take Iran out for good.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Saudis are offering a ceasefire in Palestine to mediate between Hamas and Fatah, it is safe to assume that the Saudis know they can count on steady US aid to arm Fatah more substantially than Iran can do the same for Hamas.
Nasrallah and his ilk have been forced to recognise the realities of potential civil war in Lebanon and have thus backed down from confrontation. Chalk up another one for the Saudis.
It is hard to predict the mood of both regimes, but both the KSA and Iran believe they're on a roll-of-sorts. Is it in our vested interest to play a mediating role, or be made use of by either side to achieve their own aims - all of which now seem just as deleterious to regional and national security?
We were talking about whether the US could leave Iraq, which would be possible if the mostly Shiite government could protect the people.
ReplyDeleteThen the irrelevant issue of ethnic cleansing by Shiites was brought up.
I said it is irrelevant because a government's ability to kill a few civilians in no way proves it is capable of protecting everyone in the country. Any small group of evil fighters can kill civilians -- that doesn't make it a government.
> Is it in our vested interest to play a mediating role, or be made use of by either side to achieve their own aims
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question. It points out the big problem, that neither the president or congress is telling us what is going on. All we hear is the death toll and political sniping. No one in government talks about the bigger picture, like whose side we are on and what our goals are.
According to the article this thread is about, we are on the Sunni side. And yet they are the ones fighting the government we set up in Iraq, and the ones responsible for most of our casualties.
Another quote about the Iraqi cult
ReplyDeleteBut Iraqi officials said Sunni extremists and Saddam Hussein loyalists also helped the cult in their bid to ambush Shi'ite worshippers.
"We have information from our intelligence sources that indicated the leader of this group had links with the former regime elements since 1993," said Ahmed al-Fatlawi, a member of the Najaf provincial council.
Mr. al-Fatlawi said that in addition to Iraqi Shi'ites, the gunmen included Sunnis and foreigners. Other Najaf government officials said Afghans, Saudis and even a Sudanese were among the dead.