OAO Iraq Thread

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Post stuff about Iraq here.

 

This is, I thought, an interesting article from the Atlantic about withdrawal from Iraq.

 

The Atlantic Monthly | December 2005

 

If America Left Iraq

 

by Nir Rosen

 

Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New America Foundation, spent sixteen months reporting from Iraq after the American invasion.

 

If you like this piece, check out James Fallows' cover story on the Bush failures to develop an Iraqi army, which appears in the same issue of The Atlantic Monthly, under the title: "Why Iraq Has No Army." (subscription required)

At some point—whether sooner or later—U.S. troops will leave Iraq. I have spent much of the occupation reporting from Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Fallujah, and elsewhere in the country, and I can tell you that a growing majority of Iraqis would like it to be sooner. As the occupation wears on, more and more Iraqis chafe at its failure to provide stability or even electricity, and they have grown to hate the explosions, gunfire, and constant war, and also the daily annoyances: having to wait hours in traffic because the Americans have closed off half the city; having to sit in that traffic behind a U.S. military vehicle pointing its weapons at them; having to endure constant searches and arrests. Before the January 30 elections this year the Association of Muslim Scholars—Iraq's most important Sunni Arab body, and one closely tied to the indigenous majority of the insurgency—called for a commitment to a timely U.S. withdrawal as a condition for its participation in the vote. (In exchange the association promised to rein in the resistance.) It's not just Sunnis who have demanded a withdrawal: the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is immensely popular among the young and the poor, has made a similar demand. So has the mainstream leader of the Shiites' Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who made his first call for U.S. withdrawal as early as April 23, 2003.

 

If the people the U.S. military is ostensibly protecting want it to go, why do the soldiers stay? The most common answer is that it would be irresponsible for the United States to depart before some measure of peace has been assured. The American presence, this argument goes, is the only thing keeping Iraq from an all-out civil war that could take millions of lives and would profoundly destabilize the region. But is that really the case? Let's consider the key questions surrounding the prospect of an imminent American withdrawal.

 

Would the withdrawal of U.S. troops ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites?

 

No. That civil war is already under way—in large part because of the American presence. The longer the United States stays, the more it fuels Sunni hostility toward Shiite "collaborators." Were America not in Iraq, Sunni leaders could negotiate and participate without fear that they themselves would be branded traitors and collaborators by their constituents. Sunni leaders have said this in official public statements; leaders of the resistance have told me the same thing in private. The Iraqi government, which is currently dominated by Shiites, would lose its quisling stigma. Iraq's security forces, also primarily Shiite, would no longer be working on behalf of foreign infidels against fellow Iraqis, but would be able to function independently and recruit Sunnis to a truly national force. The mere announcement of an intended U.S. withdrawal would allow Sunnis to come to the table and participate in defining the new Iraq.

 

But if American troops aren't in Baghdad, what's to stop the Sunnis from launching an assault and seizing control of the city?

 

Sunni forces could not mount such an assault. The preponderance of power now lies with the majority Shiites and the Kurds, and the Sunnis know this. Sunni fighters wield only small arms and explosives, not Saddam's tanks and helicopters, and are very weak compared with the cohesive, better armed, and numerically superior Shiite and Kurdish militias. Most important, Iraqi nationalism—not intramural rivalry—is the chief motivator for both Shiites and Sunnis. Most insurgency groups view themselves as waging a muqawama—a resistance—rather than a jihad. This is evident in their names and in their propaganda. For instance, the units commanded by the Association of Muslim Scholars are named after the 1920 revolt against the British. Others have names such as Iraqi Islamic Army and Flame of Iraq. They display the Iraqi flag rather than a flag of jihad. Insurgent attacks are meant primarily to punish those who have collaborated with the Americans and to deter future collaboration.

 

Wouldn't a U.S. withdrawal embolden the insurgency?

 

No. If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After all, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left? When I asked Sunni Arab fighters and the clerics who support them why they were fighting, they all gave me the same one-word answer: intiqaam—revenge. Revenge for the destruction of their homes, for the shame they felt when Americans forced them to the ground and stepped on them, for the killing of their friends and relatives by U.S. soldiers either in combat or during raids.

 

But what about the foreign jihadi element of the resistance? Wouldn't it be empowered by a U.S. withdrawal?

 

The foreign jihadi element—commanded by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—is numerically insignificant; the bulk of the resistance has no connection to al-Qaeda or its offshoots. (Zarqawi and his followers have benefited greatly from U.S. propaganda blaming him for all attacks in Iraq, because he is now seen by Arabs around the world as more powerful than he is; we have been his best recruiting tool.) It is true that the Sunni resistance welcomed the foreign fighters (and to some extent still do), because they were far more willing to die than indigenous Iraqis were. But what Zarqawi wants fundamentally conflicts with what Iraqi Sunnis want: Zarqawi seeks re-establishment of the Muslim caliphate and a Manichean confrontation with infidels around the world, to last until Judgment Day; the mainstream Iraqi resistance just wants the Americans out. If U.S. forces were to leave, the foreigners in Zarqawi's movement would find little support—and perhaps significant animosity—among Iraqi Sunnis, who want wealth and power, not jihad until death. They have already lost much of their support: many Iraqis have begun turning on them. In the heavily Shia Sadr City foreign jihadis had burning tires placed around their necks. The foreigners have not managed to establish themselves decisively in any large cities. Even at the height of their power in Fallujah they could control only one neighborhood, the Julan, and they were hated by the city's resistance council. Today foreign fighters hide in small villages and are used opportunistically by the nationalist resistance.

 

When the Americans depart and Sunnis join the Iraqi government, some of the foreign jihadis in Iraq may try to continue the struggle—but they will have committed enemies in both Baghdad and the Shiite south, and the entire Sunni triangle will be against them. They will have nowhere to hide. Nor can they merely take their battle to the West. The jihadis need a failed state like Iraq in which to operate. When they leave Iraq, they will be hounded by Arab and Western security agencies.

 

What about the Kurds? Won't they secede if the United States leaves?

 

Yes, but that's going to happen anyway. All Iraqi Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. They do not feel Iraqi. They've effectively had more than a decade of autonomy, thanks to the UN-imposed no-fly zone; they want nothing to do with the chaos that is Iraq. Kurdish independence is inevitable—and positive. (Few peoples on earth deserve a state more than the Kurds.) For the moment the Kurdish government in the north is officially participating in the federalist plan—but the Kurds are preparing for secession. They have their own troops, the peshmerga, thought to contain 50,000 to 100,000 fighters. They essentially control the oil city of Kirkuk. They also happen to be the most America-loving people I have ever met; their leaders openly seek to become, like Israel, a proxy for American interests. If what the United States wants is long-term bases in the region, the Kurds are its partners.

 

Would Turkey invade in response to a Kurdish secession?

 

For the moment Turkey is more concerned with EU membership than with Iraq's Kurds—who in any event have expressed no ambitions to expand into Turkey. Iraq's Kurds speak a dialect different from Turkey's, and, in fact, have a history of animosity toward Turkish Kurds. Besides, Turkey, as a member of NATO, would be reluctant to attack in defiance of the United States. Turkey would be satisfied with guarantees that it would have continued access to Kurdish oil and trade and that Iraqi Kurds would not incite rebellion in Turkey.

 

Would Iran effectively take over Iraq?

 

No. Iraqis are fiercely nationalist—even the country's Shiites resent Iranian meddling. (It is true that some Iraqi Shiites view Iran as an ally, because many of their leaders found safe haven there when exiled by Saddam—but thousands of other Iraqi Shiites experienced years of misery as prisoners of war in Iran.) Even in southeastern towns near the border I encountered only hostility toward Iran.

 

What about the goal of creating a secular democracy in Iraq that respects the rights of women and non-Muslims?

 

Give it up. It's not going to happen. Apart from the Kurds, who revel in their secularism, Iraqis overwhelmingly seek a Muslim state. Although Iraq may have been officially secular during the 1970s and 1980s, Saddam encouraged Islamism during the 1990s, and the difficulties of the past decades have strengthened the resurgence of Islam. In the absence of any other social institutions, the mosques and the clergy assumed the dominant role in Iraq following the invasion. Even Baathist resistance leaders told me they have returned to Islam to atone for their sins under Saddam. Most Shiites, too, follow one cleric or another. Ayatollah al-Sistani—supposedly a moderate—wants Islam to be the source of law. The invasion of Iraq has led to a theocracy, which can only grow more hostile to America as long as U.S. soldiers are present.

 

Does Iraqi history offer any lessons?

 

The British occupation of Iraq, in the first half of the twentieth century, may be instructive. The British faced several uprisings and coups. The Iraqi government, then as now, was unable to suppress the rebels on its own and relied on the occupying military. In 1958, when the government the British helped install finally fell, those who had collaborated with them could find no popular support; some, including the former prime minister Nuri Said, were murdered and mutilated. Said had once been a respected figure, but he became tainted by his collaboration with the British. That year, when revolutionary officers overthrew the government, Said disguised himself as a woman and tried to escape. He was discovered, shot in the head, and buried. The next day a mob dug up his corpse and dragged it through the street—an act that would be repeated so often in Iraq that it earned its own word: sahil. With the British-sponsored government gone, both Sunni and Shiite Arabs embraced the Iraqi identity. The Kurds still resent the British perfidy that made them part of Iraq.

 

What can the United States do to repair Iraq?

 

There is no panacea. Iraq is a destroyed and fissiparous country. Iranians and Saudis I've spoken to worry that it might be impossible to keep Iraq from disintegrating. But they agree that the best hope of avoiding this scenario is if the United States leaves; perhaps then Iraqi nationalism will keep at least the Arabs united. The sooner America withdraws and allows Iraqis to assume control of their own country, the better the chances that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari won't face sahil. It may be decades before Iraq recovers from the current maelstrom. By then its borders may be different, its vaunted secularism a distant relic. But a continued U.S. occupation can only get in the way.

 

Copyright 2005 The Atlantic Monthly Group.

[Guest Damn You Helmsley]

What about the goal of creating a secular democracy in Iraq that respects the rights of women and non-Muslims?

 

Give it up. It's not going to happen.

 

Brutal.

[SuperJerk 0]

Don't we already have like 50 Iraq threads or something?

[Justice 0]

Don't we already have like 50 Iraq threads or something?

 

Yeah, somethign like that. This whole "CE Relief Effort" is just a fucking quagmire.

[SuperJerk 0]

Posted on Tue, Dec. 13, 2005

 

 

Bush puts Iraqi deaths around 30,000

 

 

Knight Ridder Newspapers

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA — President Bush acknowledged Monday that perhaps 30,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion of their country.

 

The admission was an answer he gave to an unscripted question from the audience after he spoke in defense of his Iraq policy.

 

Speaking to the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, Bush downplayed expectations for this week’s election of a new Iraqi government. He said he did not expect the selection of a 275-member Parliament to end the violence that’s killed more than 2,100 Americans.

 

When pressed by a questioner for the Iraqi death toll, Bush put the figure at “30,000, more or less.” Presidential aides said the number was based on independent estimates and was not an official count.

 

Bush came to the birthplace of American democracy to deliver a progress report on the administration’s efforts to transform Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy.

 

Monday’s speech included a new twist: For the first time in months, Bush took questions from an audience that was not stacked with supporters. Although the crowd seemed generally supportive, there were some dissenters among the several hundred guests.

 

Faeze Woodville asked Bush why he and other administration officials “keep linking 9-11 to the invasion of Iraq.”

 

Bush told Woodville that the 2001 attacks changed his approach to foreign policy.

 

“If we see a threat, we’ve got to deal with it,” he said. “I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again.”

 

In his speech, the president accused Iran and Syria of trying to thwart the transition.

 

Bush said Iran is “is actively working to undermine a free Iraq.” Many of Iraq’s leading Shiite Muslims, the dominant sect in both countries, have close ties to Iran.

 

“Iran doesn’t want democracy in Iraq to succeed, because a free Iraq threatens the legitimacy of Iran’s oppressive theocracy,” he said. “Iraq’s neighbor to the west, Syria, is permitting terrorists to use that territory to cross into Iraq.”

 

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...aq/13393208.htm

[snuffbox 0]

Faeze Woodville asked Bush why he and other administration officials “keep linking 9-11 to the invasion of Iraq.”

 

Bush told Woodville that the 2001 attacks changed his approach to foreign policy.

 

“If we see a threat, we’ve got to deal with it,” he said. “I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again.”

 

 

That is probably the best that President Bush has done to explain that 'connection' so far....that it isnt that the two were physically linked but that the results of ignoring threats (perceived or real) are an important overlying connection. Unfortunately, his last second there about making his decision again is really sad.

 

I wonder if President Bush's infatuation with LBJ's big tough cowboy image extends to swimming dick naked with his biggest contributors as well...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bush puts Iraqi deaths around 30,000

 

And he went straight from civilian casualties to a corny joke...

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence

President says removing Hussein still 'right decision'

 

Programming Note: CNN's Anderson Cooper will report live from Iraq this week on the country's historic election. His reports will air at 10 p.m. ET.

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the eve of Iraq's historic election, President Bush took responsibility Wednesday for "wrong" intelligence that led to the war, but he said removing Saddam Hussein was still necessary.

 

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

 

"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision," the president said. "Saddam was a threat and the American people, and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

 

Bush spoke at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

 

Meanwhile, 48 percent of respondents to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they thought it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, as opposed to 54 percent of those polled last month. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent. Fifty percent said it was not a mistake, compared to 45 percent last month. The president's approval rating is 42 percent -- up 4 percent from November.

 

A successful election in Iraq on Thursday to establish the nation's first permanent, democratically elected government would do much to bolster the theme of Bush's speeches: that his administration's war is working.

 

"We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom," Bush said. "Iraqis will go to the polls to choose a government that will be the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. Yet we need to remember that these elections are also a vital part of a broader strategy in protecting the American people against the threat of terrorism."

 

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania -- a usually hawkish Democrat who has called for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- criticized Bush's policy again after the address.

 

"We've got nation building by the U.S. military, and that's not a mission for the U.S. military," Murtha said. "I've said this over and over again: They're not good at nation building. You've given them a mission which they cannot carry out. They do the best they can, but they can't do it."

 

Before the speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said 41 Democratic senators had sent a letter to Bush "to show that we need to get things right in Iraq after these elections."

 

"The president has had a number of speeches -- three in number -- and he has still not focused on what needs to be done in convincing the American people and showing the American people what his plan is in Iraq," Reid said.

 

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said the letter urges the Bush administration "to tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is necessary for defeating the insurgency."

 

"The president still has not stated how long his administration believes the (war) will take and how much it will cost in terms of funding and in terms of the commitment of American military and civilian personnel," Reed said.

 

In the poll, 49 percent of respondents said neither side is winning the war, 13 percent said the insurgents are winning and 36 percent said the United States is winning.

 

On Monday, speaking in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of the U.S. Constitution, Bush compared Iraq's struggles with American history.

 

"It took a four-year civil war and a century of struggle after that before the promise of our Declaration (of Independence) was extended to all Americans," Bush said. "It is important to keep this history in mind as we look at the progress of freedom and democracy in Iraq."

 

The president unexpectedly took questions from the audience, including one from a woman who asked Bush how many Iraqi "civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators" had been killed in the war.

 

"I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," Bush said. "We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq."

 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said Bush was basing his statement on media reports, "not an official government estimate."

 

About 160,000 American troops are in Iraq. The Pentagon says it hopes to reduce the number to 138,000 by the summer and 100,000 by the end of 2006.

 

During his speech December 7, Bush said the United States has succeeded in helping Iraq improve its economy and infrastructure -- which he called the "battle after the battle."

 

"Over the course of this war, we have learned that winning the battle for Iraqi cities is only the first step," Bush said. "We also have to win the battle after the battle by helping Iraqis consolidate their gains and keep the terrorists from returning."

 

And during his first speech of the series, on November 30, Bush told students at the U.S. Naval Academy, "As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html

[Art Sandusky 0]

So the election looks like it went off without a hitch. Good for them, really. I think the place is still doomed to civil war as soon as we leave, but hey, gotta break a few eggs, or so the attitude will be at that time. I still think we coulda gotten a democracy off the ground there without invading the place, but whatever. It wouldn't have been the first time we helped a country kick out their asshole leader without invading. We saw the place, militarily, was a shell compared to its 1991 form. What was in place was working. Shit, by now we might have been talking about an Iraqi revolution. Short-term thinking will always bite you in the ass. Sure, progress is being made, tons of it, and I'll be the first to say that I'm extremely happy to see all of this working out so far, but there's still a LOT of stuff that needs to be done over there just to make daily life normal again. Forcing the transition into a democracy still might not have been the best idea.

 

Ah well, it's already been done, so whatever. What sort of nation will Iraq be now that it'll be effectively legitimate with a permanent government? As long as they're somewhere between being our puppet state or developing into an extremist theocracy, it's all good to me.

 

EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/...ured/index.html

 

Forgot about this. ^^^ I totally sympathize with the guys that let him go. I've yet to see a picture of the dude where he looks the same as he does in another.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Something's been bugging me the last few weeks. Both the righties and lefties.

 

WTF are they arguing about?

 

The "We will stay there until the job is done!!!!" people are fools. As are the "we must get out now!!!!!!!!!!!" people.

 

Anybody with a lick of common sense knows what's going to happen. Bush is prodding and poking, looking for a "declare victory" moment, and the moment (MOMENT) it comes, the troops come out. The troops will be back within a year and a half, whether the job is done or not. Bush just neesd that moment.

So the lefties need to stop bleating like idiots and have patience and the righties need to get their heads out of their asses. The troops are coming back. under a year is my guess. He may do it in 3 or 4 "gradual pullout" moments within the year and a half. Regardless of whether Iraq is a "shining beacon of democracy" or not, Bush wants those troops back too, Iraq is pulling him down and messing up his term. Its simple politics. It'll happen, soon.

 

Hell, there's a speech planned for Sunday night by Bush. With the recent elections, I'm already sensing we're nearing a possible "declare victory!" moment for Bush, as soon as he sees an opening the troops are out.

[snuffbox 0]

Maybe thats why LBJ didnt run in '68...he could never find the right time to 'declare victory'.

 

I suggest actually studying what this situationis about metro...

[SuperJerk 0]

Something's been bugging me the last few weeks. Both the righties and lefties.

 

WTF are they arguing about?

 

The "We will stay there until the job is done!!!!" people are fools. As are the "we must get out now!!!!!!!!!!!" people.

 

Anybody with a lick of common sense knows what's going to happen. Bush is prodding and poking, looking for a "declare victory" moment, and the moment (MOMENT) it comes, the troops come out. The troops will be back within a year and a half, whether the job is done or not. Bush just neesd that moment.

So the lefties need to stop bleating like idiots and have patience and the righties need to get their heads out of their asses. The troops are coming back. under a year is my guess. He may do it in 3 or 4 "gradual pullout" moments within the year and a half. Regardless of whether Iraq is a "shining beacon of democracy" or not, Bush wants those troops back too, Iraq is pulling him down and messing up his term. Its simple politics. It'll happen, soon.

 

Hell, there's a speech planned for Sunday night by Bush. With the recent elections, I'm already sensing we're nearing a possible "declare victory!" moment for Bush, as soon as he sees an opening the troops are out.

I think Bush already had his declare victory moment on the aircraft carrier 2 years ago.

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush to deliver Iraq speech Sunday

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Sunday will give his first speech from the Oval Office since March 2003, when he first announced the war in Iraq, the White House said Friday.

 

In what a senior administration official called "symmetry," Sunday's speech will also focus on Iraq.

 

"That was a key moment, and now, three elections later, we're at another key moment," the official said.

 

The speech with begin at 9 p.m. ET and is scheduled to last about 20 minutes.

 

Bush will cap four recent speeches he has delivered on Iraq as part of the White House effort to bolster support for the war effort, a senior official said.

 

The speech comes just days after millions of Iraqis cast ballots in Thursday's election for a four-year parliament -- an endeavor that, so far, has been hailed as a success by Iraqis, Americans and international observers.

 

Bush told PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" that he was pleased by the news of high Sunni turnout in the election "because part of our strategy is to encourage a political process that will marginalize those who want to use violence to achieve ends."

 

The speech also comes after a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released this week that indicated most Americans don't believe Bush has a plan that will achieve victory in Iraq. (Full story)

 

Fifty-eight percent of those polled said Bush doesn't have a clear plan on Iraq, compared to 38 percent who said Bush does have a plan for victory.

 

On March 19, 2003, Bush announced from the Oval Office that the war in Iraq had begun and he predicted it would be "a broad and concerted campaign."

 

"We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people," Bush said in the 2003 speech.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/bus...eech/index.html

 

Hmmmm....

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush: Iraq pullout would hurt credibility

President acknowledges divisions, cites 'steady gains'

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush acknowledged deep divisions and difficult progress in Iraq Sunday night, but said U.S. forces were making "steady gains" in the nearly 3-year-old war and urged Americans not to "give in to despair."

 

In his first Oval Office address since launching the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Bush called Thursday's balloting for a permanent Iraqi government "a landmark day in the history of liberty." But he also warned, "There is more testing and sacrifice before us."

 

"For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope," he said. "For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them.

 

"My fellow citizens, not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq," he said. (Full transcript)

 

More than 2,100 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the invasion, which Bush and top aides argued was necessary to strip Iraq of chemical and biological weapons and efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. No such weapons were found once the government of Saddam Hussein collapsed in April 2003.

 

Bush argued Sunday that the United States needs to secure Iraq's fledgling government in order to foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East -- a process he says will defuse the threat of terrorism in the region.

 

Bush acknowledged the doubts of many Americans who opposed the invasion, but said the United States now faces just two outcomes: "victory or defeat."

 

"I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom," he said.

 

Bush said he disagrees with critics who have concluded the war, which the White House has said is costing about $6 billion per month, is "not worth another dime or another day."

 

The Sunday night address was the latest in a series of speeches meant to shore up declining public support for the war. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll last week found 59 percent disapproved of the president's handling of the conflict.

 

Also Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney paid a surprise visit to Iraq, meeting with top Iraqi and U.S. officials under heavy security.

Bush said the war has been "more difficult than we expected," with reconstruction work and the establishment of a new Iraqi military and police force taking longer than hoped.

 

But he said a quick withdrawal from Iraq, as some of his critics have advocated, would damage U.S. credibility just as insurgents begin to feel "a tightening noose" of U.S. and Iraqi forces.

 

"Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view," he said.

 

Bush said the United States could not withdraw its troops from Iraq "before our work is done."

 

"We would abandon our Iraqi friends -- and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word," he said. "We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us."

 

He held out the prospect that some U.S. troops might be able to come home before long as Iraq's fledgling government and military take on more responsibilities.

 

"As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission," he said.

'Candor' praised

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he was "optimistic" about the situation in Iraq after the president's speech.

 

"I congratulate the president on being honest and candid about past problems and telling us how hard it's going to be but how necessary it will be to get it right," said Graham, who was in Iraq last week to monitor the election.

 

He said other problems need to be addressed in Iraq, including the influence of sectarian and political militias in government agencies like the Interior Ministry, which oversees the police.

 

"You cannot have a democracy where you have militias," he said. But he added, "There's hope now where there was no hope before."

 

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, said Bush's jabs at "defeatists" made the address "a typical kind of my-way-or-the-highway speech."

 

"I think that's really unnecessary, and I think it's really important for the president to be honest with the American people that the hard slog is far from over," she said.

 

Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the few senators to call for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, said the United States must shift its focus back to terrorist networks like al Qaeda.

 

"The president needs to realize that his misguided, Iraq-centric policies are draining our military and intelligence capabilities and are undermining our efforts to combat al Qaeda and its allies," the Wisconsin Democrat said in a written statement.

 

But Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican who had to give up his post as House majority leader after his indictment on campaign finance charges in Texas, praised Bush for a "clear, specific and resolute" speech.

 

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois said House Republicans would stand firm against any calls for withdrawal "despite attempts by some Democrats to play politics with this war and America's national security."

 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid praised Bush's "increased candor" about the war, but said "too much of the substance remains the same."

 

"The American people have still not heard what benchmarks we must meet along the way to know that progress is being made and that our brave troops can begin to come home," said the Nevada Democrat.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.speech

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I don't know why everyone is all concerned about Iraq staying together in the first place. It was an artifical creation by the Triple Entente at the end of World War I if I'm not mistaken and if exit polls are any indication the country is already splitting along Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite lines (surprise, surprise). I just don't understand what the whole arguement is about "Iraq MUST STAY TOGETHER!" when it's not really logical for it to stay together and second it hasn't had a solid history of staying together.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don't know why everyone is all concerned about Iraq staying together in the first place. It was an artifical creation by the Triple Entente at the end of World War I if I'm not mistaken and if exit polls are any indication the country is already splitting along Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite lines (surprise, surprise). I just don't understand what the whole arguement is about "Iraq MUST STAY TOGETHER!" when it's not really logical for it to stay together and second it hasn't had a solid history of staying together.

 

Well, if it split into 3 parts, from what I understand, the Sunni part would be an oil-less, impoverished, hellhole and a major potential breeding ground for terrorism.

[SuperJerk 0]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43693

 

People who say that the Onion isn't funny are, themselves, funny.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I don't know why everyone is all concerned about Iraq staying together in the first place. It was an artifical creation by the Triple Entente at the end of World War I if I'm not mistaken and if exit polls are any indication the country is already splitting along Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite lines (surprise, surprise). I just don't understand what the whole arguement is about "Iraq MUST STAY TOGETHER!" when it's not really logical for it to stay together and second it hasn't had a solid history of staying together.

 

Well, if it split into 3 parts, from what I understand, the Sunni part would be an oil-less, impoverished, hellhole and a major potential breeding ground for terrorism.

 

Fair enough, but your telling me that the Sunnis couldn't create an economy on anything other than oil? Why is it that the Middle East as a whole has a stereotype of the "oil or nothing" economy? After all, Islamic civilization used to be @ the forefront of scientific advances, but after the Mongols swept through there centuries ago they've gone backward whereas the West went forward.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don't know why everyone is all concerned about Iraq staying together in the first place. It was an artifical creation by the Triple Entente at the end of World War I if I'm not mistaken and if exit polls are any indication the country is already splitting along Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite lines (surprise, surprise). I just don't understand what the whole arguement is about "Iraq MUST STAY TOGETHER!" when it's not really logical for it to stay together and second it hasn't had a solid history of staying together.

 

Well, if it split into 3 parts, from what I understand, the Sunni part would be an oil-less, impoverished, hellhole and a major potential breeding ground for terrorism.

 

Fair enough, but your telling me that the Sunnis couldn't create an economy on anything other than oil? Why is it that the Middle East as a whole has a stereotype of the "oil or nothing" economy? After all, Islamic civilization used to be @ the forefront of scientific advances, but after the Mongols swept through there centuries ago they've gone backward whereas the West went forward.

 

I'm not saying that they can't build an economy without oil, just that they definitely won't want to. And I doubt that they would be happy with being left without oil.

[2GOLD 0]

Basically, they would train an army of the poor and invade leading to one of the biggest terrorist attacks on a couple of countries for the purpose of toppling governments to gain country of oil. The Sunnis wouldn't play that "be nice and develop technology to make us money", they would play "build better weapons to fuck up everyone to steal money".

 

Option 2 is easier for them.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

U.S. Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding

Documents Show Much of the Funding Diverted to Security, Justice System and Hussein Inquiry

 

By Ellen Knickmeyer

Washington Post Foreign Service

Monday, January 2, 2006; A01

 

 

 

BAGHDAD -- The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say. The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.

 

Just under 20 percent of the reconstruction package remains unallocated. When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people.

 

"The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters at a recent news conference. In an interview this past week, McCoy said: "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."

 

Since the reconstruction effort began in 2003, midcourse changes by U.S. officials have shifted at least $2.5 billion from the rebuilding of Iraq's decrepit electrical, education, water, sewage, sanitation and oil networks to build new security forces for Iraq and to construct a nationwide system of medium- and maximum-security prisons and detention centers that meet international standards, according to reconstruction officials and documents. Many of the changes were forced by an insurgency more fierce than the United States had expected when its troops entered Iraq.

 

In addition, from 14 percent to 22 percent of the cost of every nonmilitary reconstruction project goes toward security against insurgent attacks, according to reconstruction officials in Baghdad. In Washington, the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction puts the security costs of each project at 25 percent.

 

U.S. officials more than doubled the size of the Iraqi army, which they initially planned to build to only 40,000 troops. An item-by-item inspection of reallocated funds reveals how priorities were shifted rapidly to fund initiatives addressing the needs of a new Iraq: a 300-man Iraqi hostage-rescue force that authorities say stages operations almost every night in Baghdad; more than 600 Iraqis trained to dispose of bombs and protect against suicide bombs; four battalions of Iraqi special forces to protect the oil and electric networks; safe houses and armored cars for judges; $7.8 million worth of bulletproof vests for firefighters; and a center in the city of Kirkuk for treating victims of torture.

 

At the same time, the hundreds of Americans and Iraqis who have devoted themselves to the reconstruction effort point to 3,600 projects that the United States has completed or intends to finish before the $18.4 billion runs out around the end of 2006. These include work on 900 schools, construction of hospitals and nearly 160 health care centers and clinics, and repairs on or construction of nearly 800 miles of highways, city streets and village roads.

 

But the insurgency has set back efforts across the board. In two of the most crucial areas, electricity and oil production, relentless sabotage has kept output at or below prewar levels despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of American dollars and countless man-hours. Oil production stands at roughly 2 million barrels a day, compared with 2.6 million before U.S. troops entered Iraq in March 2003, according to U.S. government statistics.

 

The national electrical grid has an average daily output of 4,000 megawatts, about 400 megawatts less than its prewar level.

 

Iraqis nationwide receive on average less than 12 hours of power a day. For residents of Baghdad, it was six hours a day last month, according to a U.S. count, though many residents say that figure is high.

 

The Americans, said Zaid Saleem, 26, who works at a market in Baghdad, "are the best in destroying things but they are the worst in rebuilding."

 

The Price of Security

 

In a speech on Aug. 8, 2003, President Bush promised more for Iraq.

 

"In a lot of places, the infrastructure is as good as it was at prewar levels, which is satisfactory, but it's not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is for the infrastructure to be the best in the region," Bush said.

 

U.S. officials at the time promised a steady supply of 6,000 megawatts of electricity and a return to oil production output of 2.5 million barrels a day, within months.

 

But the insurgency changed everything.

 

"Good morning, gentlemen," a security contractor in shirt-sleeves said crisply late last week, launching into a security briefing in what amounts to a reconstruction war room in Baghdad's Green Zone, home to much of the Iraqi government.

 

Other private security contractors hunched over desks in front of him, learning the state of play for what would be roughly 200 missions that day to serve the 865 U.S. reconstruction projects underway -- taking inspectors to work sites, guarding convoys of building materials or escorting dignitaries to see works in progress, among other jobs.

 

A screen overhead detailed the previous day's 70 or so attacks on private, military and Iraqi security forces. The briefer noted bombs planted in potholes, rigged in cars, hidden in the vests of suicide attackers. There were also mortar attacks and small-arms fire. The briefer also noted miles of roads rendered impassable or where travel was inadvisable owing to attacks, and some of the previous day's toll in terms of dead and wounded.

 

Colored blocks on the screen marked convoys en route, each tracked by transponders and equipped with panic buttons.

 

To one side, a TV monitor scrolled out the day's news, including McCoy's remark to reporters that December was the worst month on record for Iraqi contractors working on reconstruction, with more killed, wounded or kidnapped than during any other month since the U.S. invasion.

 

"For every three steps forward, we take one step back. Those are the conditions we face," said Col. Bjarne Iverson, commander of the reconstruction operations center. He followed with a comment often used by American authorities in Iraq: "There are people who just want us to fail here."

 

The heavy emphasis on security, and the money it would cost, had not been anticipated in the early months of the U.S. occupation. In January 2004, after the first disbursements of the $18.4 billion reconstruction package, the United States planned only $3.2 billion to build up Iraq's army and police. But as the insurgency intensified, money was shifted from other sectors, including more than $1 billion earmarked for electricity, to build a police force and army capable of combating foreign and domestic guerrillas.

 

In addition to training and equipping police and soldiers, money has been spent for special operations and quick-response forces, commandos and other special police, as well as public-order brigades, hostage-rescue forces, infrastructure guards and other specialized units.

 

In the process, the United States will spend $437 million on border fortresses and guards, about $100 million more than the amount dedicated to roads, bridges and public buildings, including schools. Education programs have been allocated $99 million; the United States is spending $107 million to build a secure communications network for security forces.

 

Hundreds of millions of dollars were shifted to fund elections and to take Iraq through four changes of government. Funds were also reallocated to provide a $767 million increase in spending on Iraq's justice system. The money has gone toward building or renovating 10 medium- and maximum-security prisons -- early plans called for four prisons -- and for detention centers nationwide.

 

Tens of millions of dollars more are going to pay for courts, prosecutors and investigations. Millions are going to create safe houses for judges and for witness protection programs.

 

The criminal justice spending has been intertwined with the drive to try Hussein. The costs have been high, including $128 million to exhume and examine at least five mass grave sites.

 

A Gap in Perspective

 

The shifts in allocations have led Stuart Bowen, the inspector general in charge of tracking the $18.4 billion, to talk of a "reconstruction gap," or the difference between what Iraqis and Americans expected from the U.S. reconstruction effort at first and what they are seeing now.

 

The inspector general's office is conducting an audit to quantify the shortfall between expectations and performance, spokesman Jim Mitchell said.

 

McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander for reconstruction, cites a poll conducted earlier last year that found less than 30 percent of Iraqis knew that any reconstruction efforts were underway. The percentage has since risen to more than 40 percent, McCoy said.

 

"It is easy for the Americans to say, 'We are doing reconstruction in Iraq,' and we hear that. But to make us believe it, they should show us where this reconstruction is," said Mustafa Sidqi Murthada, owner of a men's clothing store in Baghdad. "Maybe they are doing this reconstruction for them in the Green Zone. But this is not for the Iraqis."

 

"Believe me, they are not doing this," he said, "unless they consider rebuilding of their military bases reconstruction."

 

U.S. officials say comparatively minor sabotage to distribution systems is keeping Iraqis from seeing the gains from scores of projects to increase electricity generation and oil production. To showcase a rebuilt school or government building, meanwhile, is to invite insurgents to bomb it.

 

If 2006 brings political stability and an easing of the insurgency, Americans say, the distribution systems can be fairly easily repaired.

 

"The good news is this investment is not in any way lost; they're there," said Dan Speckhard, the director of the U.S. reconstruction management office in Iraq. "They will pay off, they will be felt, if not this month, then six months down the road."

 

While the Bush administration is not seeking any new reconstruction funds for Iraq, commanders here have military discretionary funds they can use for small reconstruction projects. The U.S. Agency for International Development is expected to undertake some building projects, as it does in 80 other countries, with money from the foreign appropriations bill.

[cbacon 0]

The ''terrorist" factions EXPLODE~!

 

“Al-Hayat [Ar.]: Sources close to the guerrilla groups in Iraq told the pan-Arab, Saudi-backed London daily, al-Hayat that new disputes have exploded between it and the organization “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia” led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, after he carried out last Thursday’s bombings in Karbala and Ramadi. Dozens of Shiite and Sunni civilians were killed. The Iraqi guerrilla groups told al-Hayat that they would not unite with the Zarqawi group, as a result.

 

The Iraqi guerrilla groups say that they only attack the Occupation forces and avoid attacks on civilians, whereas Zarqawi deliberately targets the latter, having adopted a policy of launching a war against the Shiites. His group rarely tangles with the Americans, al-Hayat says, whereas the Iraqi guerrillas killed 5 Americans over the weekend and shot down a Blackhawk helicopter near Tal Afar. [This is the first claim I know of by the ex-Baathists to have shot down the helicopter.]

 

[Cole: Since there are too few foreign fighters under Zarqawi to account for all the attacks on civilians around the country, I conclude that a lot of them are actually carried out by the Neo-Baathists or Iraqi Salafis, who then blame them on Zarqawi. They thus get to pose as national heroes with clean hands. And Zarqawi gets to boast about being ubiquitous. And Dick Cheney gets to threaten us with al-Qaeda in Iraq (there was no al-Qaeda operating in Iraq before Cheney opened up the possibility by invading the country). So everyone is happy with this lie. But it isn’t a plausible one. All this is not to say that there aren’t tensions between Zarqawi’s people and the ex-Baath captains in the provinces.]”

 

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/guerrillas...om-cold-al.html

[SuperJerk 0]

New ad about Iraq I saw on TV tonight can be found at: http://progressforamerica.org/

 

 

These people want to kill us. Whether called Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, they're terrorists who want to kill everyone who don't submit to their extreme ideology, submit to a system where women have no rights, where innocent civilians are political pawns.

 

Many seem to have forgotten the evil that happened only five years ago.

 

They would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving Al-Qaeda to attack us again.

 

Many times before 9/11, Al-Qaeda attacked America, and we took little action: the first World Trade Center bombing, our embassies, the USS Cole.

 

But after 9/11, we struck back, destroying Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us.

 

Now, we have narrowly escaped "another 9/11," using proven surveillance that some would stop.

 

The War on Terror is a war for our country's freedom, security and survival.

 

All the flat-out lies are in bold.

 

In order:

 

-Hezbollah didn't attack us.

-Ending military occupation of Iraq isn't the same thing as leaving the entire Middle East.

-This article sums it up.

-We have not destroyed the Al-Qaeda terrorists in either place.

-NSA wiretapping had nothing do with the recent foiled plot, since it was British intelligence that brought the plot to an end.

 

Factcheck.org also does an excellent job dissecting this piece of crap ad.