OT: The Obscene Truth Behind The Iraq Surge
h...@nospam.org
The Obscene Truth Behind The Iraq Surge
Written on February 27th, 2008 by nick | Posted in World News |
If there are people out there who are weary of calling the troop surge
in Iraq a success, then they are not alone. Although Republican
politicians, mainstream media, George W. Bush and especially John
McCain have touted the surge a success, they are only telling of the
paint job that has been done to make Iraq look like a new car. The
surge is masking something much bigger, and if left to fester, will
eventually lead to a bigger and more consequential civil war in Iraq,
even beyond the kind we were seeing before the surge began last year.
The Iraq Surge
The surge, which began in January of 2007, was to be a deployment of
30,000 troops to secure the capital Baghdad. However, it initially did
not carry with it the decline in sectarian violence that everyone
expected. How could it, when the divide was, and still is ideological
and cultural with a little dash of land and oil just to make it
interesting. All in the vacuum of power-hungry sectarian leaders such
as radical Shiite cleric Muqtadah al-Sadr.
The decline in violence and what turned out to be “success” began when
the U.S. commanders in Iraq started to buy off the Sunni Arab
militias. Iraq was seen as going down the drain. Car bombs left and
right, hundreds dying in an instant, sectarian violence, ethnic
cleansing, executions, assassinations, and an Iraq government with
nothing to show in terms of political or security progress.
With the arming and financing of these Sunni Militias, the U.S have
compounded on the big mess that is Iraq. They are going the route of
the 1980’s when America also armed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in
the fight against the Soviets. These forces would later form the
leadership of Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda or Militias?
Even terrorism is no longer a worthy argument for staying in Iraq,
although John McCain still uses it in his stump speeches. According to
Bush and McCain, “If we don’t fight them over there” then they will
come to fight and terrorize in The U.S. What a bunch of fear mongers.
Their premise is simple, Al Qaeda will hava a chance to train new
terrorists in the safe haven of Iraq if The U.S. withdraws.
The question is, what safe haven? What Bush and McCain don’t say to
the public, is that most, and I mean most of the violence being made
in Iraq is not coming from Al Qaeda, it is coming from the Shiite
militias and the violent Sunni Arabs factions, as well as pockets of
Kurdish insurgents. It is these factions of Militias and radical
Islamists who have engaged in ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods, who
have been involved in most of the car bombings and shootouts with U.S.
soldiers. The fact is, the Bush Administration is creating more
terrorists than they are killing or imprisoning.
The Bush Administration’s claim to fame with regards to Iraq is
nothing but a sham. They could not develop a strategy to fight off the
insurgency, so they have been paying them off, and not only that, the
most mind numbing revelation of them all is that America is arming the
Insurgents!
Arming The Civil War
The Sunni insurgents have agreed to stave off violence against the U.S
soldiers, and in return they have been given monthly allowances, and
have been slowly but surely arming themselves. These are the very
people that have been shooting at soldiers ever since the occupation
of Iraq.
The Sunni insurgents don’t really care. It’s a win-win situation for
them. They get to regroup, recruit, and arm themselves for the
eventual battle to take over Iraq. Not only are they gaining in
numbers, they are now well funded and well armed thanks to the Bush
Administration’s help.
The fact is that the “surge” never worked at all, it is the large
payoffs of these insurgents that have led to the decline in violence.
But get ready for the storm that is brewing. Not only are there more
guns and ammunitions being poured into Iraq, they are being handed
straight into the hands of enemies who months ago were shooting at and
bombing American Soldiers.
A few more months of this, they will be able to rival both the Shiite
Militias and even the Iraq Army itself.
Yes, let it sink in. The U.S. is arming the Sunni Militias, who are
the same insurgents who have been contributing to the violence in
Iraq. It is also arming the security forces of Iraq, of which the
composition is mostly Shiites. It is the animosity between Sunni and
Shiites that is the danger. This is the kind of genius strategy that
is being played out, behind the curtains of “the surge”. It is not the
surge that has resulted in the decline of violence, it is the lure of
money and weapons that have convinced Sunni Militants to pause the
fighting in order to grab all the goodies they can.
The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr has also called a
cease-fire. In the end, the U.S. commanders on the ground have the
good graces of the militias to thank.
What if the good grace is used up? What if the Sunni Militias have
decided they are finally armed enough to mount an overthrow of the
government? What if Sadr decides to end the cease-fire? And what if
the mostly Shiite Iraq Security Forces turn against the government?
The result is An American Army caught between a civil war which their
own government armed and financed.
Saddam Hussein Haunts From The Grave
Saddam Hussein Hanging
If Saddam’s public hanging was any indication of the sectarian divide
between Sunni and Shiite Arabs, then we should not have surprised with
the violence that eventually engulfed Iraq because of the U.S.
occupation. Looking back at the hanging of Saddam, as loyalists of
Muqtada al-Sadr repeatedly shouted his name, it was clear there was a
divide to begin with.
The Sunni government of Saddam, the loyalists, the armed guards, and
the army of Saddam have been lying in wait for a chance to reclaim
their Iraq. And Bush is just the clueless president to arm the Saddam
loyalists.
With The Sunni Militias overpowering the Mahdi Army of radical Shiite
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in number, it is only time, that they will also
rival the numbers of the Iraqi Central Government Army. And the fickle
Iraqi Army already has within it sectarian loyalists. We can already
make a case, that once The Sunni Militias feel they are ready, they
will try to overthrow the Iraqi Government, face off with The Shiite
Militias, try to wipe out Kurdish neighborhoods, and into the dark and
grim reality we go, as Iraq is plunged into a civil war.
The Strategy of Failure
Because George W. Bush is so intent in saving face, the short term
political success he has had because of the masquerade he has
accomplished with the surge, he and his commanders have given Iraq a
new cause for worry, and even decades more violence that is almost too
painful to think about.
He has gone and produced competing armies within Iraq. The Shiite
Mahdi Army of Muqtada Al Sadr, the Sunni Arabs that are being financed
and armed by The Bush Administration, and the U.S backed Iraq Shiite
Security Forces.
The Bush Administration, in a sense, has made sure, that any withdraw
from Iraq will be followed by some of the greatest atrocities,
violence, and sectarian genocides ever seen.
This is the success George W. Bush and his group of blundering and
neocon allies are betting on. As long, as in the end, they are not to
blame, they have survived one of the biggest and most idiotic
international policy mistake ever made by a sitting U.S President.
The Dump And Run
Mission Accomplished
If the surge is considered a success by any stretch of the
imagination, then maybe because it is only a success to the person at
the helm. George W. Bush has not only successfully fooled the American
public and mainstream media, but it is his legacy to have left the
next American President and all the presidents after, a mess in Iraq,
unfathomable to the human mind.
It will no longer be George Bush’s Iraq, no longer the Iraq of
Rumsfeld, or even Dick Cheney, it will no longer belong to the men who
entrenched an entire nation into a never-ending war, and that in the
end is the success George Bush wanted from the surge.
It was not a plan for withdrawal of the troops, it was a plan to give
himself time, and save himself all the scrutiny that came into a
seemingly losing Iraq War. With the dressing up that has been done,
George Bush will walk away guilt free, leaving his Iraq to an
unsuspecting President to inherit. Indeed, the surge could aptly be
titled, Bush’s Dump and Run strategy.
George Bush, just like in Vietnam, wants a rewriting of history.
Forget who put America in the mess it’s in, forget his failed
strategy, forget the decades that will become of America’s Iraq, this
momentary “success” that the media is eating up is his window of
opportunity. With it, he will tow the line of: “When I left office,
Iraq was on the road to success, it is the succeeding President’s who
failed”. It will no longer be his to own.
The surge is not a success. America is arming the enemy. The Iraq
government has no political solution. Iraq is now bracing itself for a
real civil war. And that my friends, is the obscene truth behind the
Iraq surge.
Herbert Cannon
like ignoring results. This guy better tell Obama that "surges" don't work
cause, if elected, he is planning to increase the US troop commitment
considerably in Afghanistan
trav...@aol.com
is pricing imminent collapse of WM, with its swaps spreads trading
where BSC's where immediately prior to its implosion.
WTF are you idiots still obsessing over this idiotic little war for??
Trav
trav...@aol.com
Read Col. Kurtz's comments in Apocalypse Now.
Given the reality there, we will be forced to partition the State or
else, if we really want the oil, we're going to have to use The Bomb.
As for Afghanistan, we're fighting a VC coming out of a neighboring
state, one that we've been allies with and armed over decades, a
nuclear power. Every muslim nation within the region is sending
recruits into the FATA while madrassas pour out new jihadists by the
hundreds.
The parallels between the two conflicts are clear. Funding, support,
and manpower pours in from a state to the east neither of which we can
really attack. We'd have been better off with Saddam.
Trav
Herbert Cannon
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290b11c9-984f-4c9c...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 1:15 pm, "Herbert Cannon" <hcanno...@cox.net> wrote:
> Gee that must be why the violence went down considerably in Iraq. Nothing
> like ignoring results. This guy better tell Obama that "surges" don't work
> cause, if elected, he is planning to increase the US troop commitment
> considerably in Afghanistan
Read Col. Kurtz's comments in Apocalypse Now.
Given the reality there, we will be forced to partition the State or
else, if we really want the oil, we're going to have to use The Bomb.
Iraq is quite different from Nam. Iran could even end up an ally with their
fear of the Sunni nations.
As for Afghanistan, we're fighting a VC coming out of a neighboring
state, one that we've been allies with and armed over decades, a
nuclear power. Every muslim nation within the region is sending
recruits into the FATA while madrassas pour out new jihadists by the
hundreds.
Afghanistan is quite more complicated than even you suggest; and has a lot
less importance. But tell that to the Democrats. They have adopted it as the
new state.
The parallels between the two conflicts are clear. Funding, support,
and manpower pours in from a state to the east neither of which we can
really attack. We'd have been better off with Saddam.
There are no real parallels.
There is much to say we would not have been better off with Saddam.
Jerry B. Altzman
WaMu's implosion and subsequent bailout will likely cost less than the war.
> Trav
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
trav...@aol.com
> fear of the Sunni nations.
Huh? I said read the comments. The iraqis are a squalid rabble.
They blow each other up and ethnically cleanse.
> Afghanistan is quite more complicated than even you suggest; and has a lot
> less importance. But tell that to the Democrats. They have adopted it as the
> new state.
Afghanistan is relatively simple. The taliban is funded and operated
out of Pakistan, where we can't fight.
> There are no real parallels.
> There is much to say we would not have been better off with Saddam.
Idiot.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
>
> > Trav
>
> //jbaltz
> --
> jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
> thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
WM is not the last bank to fail.
Trav
Herbert Cannon
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f9fc1dd2-6e94-4b08...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
shuu...@gmail.com
> The Obscene Truth Behind The Iraq Surge
> Written on February 27th, 2008 by nick | Posted in World News |
So now you've gone from op-eds to blogs? What's next, bathroom wall
graffiti?
Mark Goldberg
Nick, huh?
Well, another very weak article by you.
But the obscene Truth is that you want the US defeated.
But here... here's something for your 'Rma'ers should become muslims
because it's a successful warrior religion' bit...
Your love of the land and tyranny bit...
Mark
-----------------
July 28, 2008
Suicide bombings target Shi'ite pilgrims in Iraq
Sunni-Shi'ite Jihad Update. "Spate of suicide attacks kill more than 50
in Iraq," from Agence France-Presse, July 28:
Three women bombers blew themselves up on Monday in a crowd of
Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad, one of a string of attacks in Iraq that
killed at least 51 people, undermining hopes of a drop in violence.
Scores of people were also wounded in the attacks, which follow a
relative lull in the sectarian violence that has ravaged the country
since February 2006, when insurgents blew up a Shiite mosque in the
central city of Samarra.
The triple attack in Baghdad killed at least 25 pilgrims as they
headed to a holy shrine for a major religious ceremony on the Shiite
Muslim calendar that has been marred by bloodshed in the past, security
officials said.
Another 22 people were killed in a suicide bombing during a protest
rally in the northern oil city of Kirkuk, and gunfire in a panicked
stampede that followed, local officials said.
Among the dead in the Baghdad bombings were women and children,
security and hospital officials told AFP, adding that about 70 other
people were wounded.
The bombers struck in the Karrada district of central Baghdad as
pilgrims were making their way on foot towards Kadhimiyah in the north
of the Iraqi capital, site of a Shiite festival on Tuesday.
"At least 25 people were killed and more than 70 were wounded in
three suicide attacks, probably by females suicide bombers," a police
official said.
On Sunday, gunmen shot dead seven pilgrims in Madin, a town south
of Baghdad, despite tight security for Tuesday's ceremony honouring
revered imam Mussa Kadhim that is expected to attract up to one million
worshippers.
Pilgrims from around the country are flocking to the Iraqi capital
to mourn the revered imam who died 12 centuries ago, prompting
authorities to step up security amid concerns over attacks.
Systematic violence -- suicide bombings and sectarian killings --
have dropped sharply in the capital since a peak in 2006, but Iraqi
police are worried about a wave of attacks in the city of six million
people.
Major General Kassam Atta, spokesman for city security, told
reporters that his force had information regarding the possibility of
attacks targeting pilgrims during this year's festival.
"We ask people to help in all ways with our security forces," Atta
said, adding that up to one million people were expected.
Checks have been particularly stringent amid what appears to be [a]
growing trend of using women in insurgent bombings, which have claimed
hundreds of lives across the volatile country....
h...@nospam.org
<msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>h...@nospam.org wrote:
>> The Obscene Truth Behind The Iraq Surge
>>
>
>Nick, huh?
>
>Well, another very weak article by you.
>
>But the obscene Truth is that you want the US defeated.
the US should not be invading sovereign nations and murdering a
million of it's people for the sole reason of stealing natural
resources. And our government should not be lying to it's people.
Hal
Mark Goldberg
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:45:59 -0400, Mark Goldberg
> <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> h...@nospam.org wrote:
>>> The Obscene Truth Behind The Iraq Surge
>>>
>> Nick, huh?
>>
>> Well, another very weak article by you.
>>
>> But the obscene Truth is that you want the US defeated.
>
> the US should not be invading sovereign nations and murdering a
> million of it's people for the sole reason of stealing natural
> resources. And our government should not be lying to it's people.
>
> Hal
Your brain was stolen, right after you threw honor away, sold any
remnant of integrity, and opened your ass to being boinked by the moral,
ethical and factual equivalism of all your leftist canards.
Ooh, ooh.... you purred.
You are a self created lying rat, and It will likely be people like me
who will have to hold others back from stringing you up prior to the
equivalent Nuremberg trial awaiting your miserable self....
I will have difficulty restraining them. My heart won't be in it.
Mark
h...@nospam.org
<msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
so what part are you denying, that the US did an illegal invasion of a
sovereign nation, they murdered a million Iraqi people, we are
stealing their oil, or the Bush government lied to the American
people?
but it doesn't matter to you, does it Goldberg? Doesn't matter what
happens to a bunch of stupid Goyim as long as Israel gets to profit at
someone else's expense.
Hal
http://www.nogw.com/warcrimes.html
Red Cross finds Bush administration guilty of war crimes PDF by
Andrew McLemore July 12, 2008
Bush's 'war crimes' & misdemeanors PDF Middle East Online 09/06/2008
11 million dead in Afghanistan and Iraq? PDF By Dr Gideon Polya 08
February, 2008 Countercurrents.org
Holocaust Denial, American Style PDF By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet
November 21, 2007 - the British polling firm Opinion Research Business
estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the US invasion.
War Crimes PDF By J Bruce Campbell 8-16-6
The Torture Tape Fingering Bush As a War Criminal PDF by Andrew
Sullivan December 24, 2007 The Times Online
Bush bill pardons himself for his war crimes Video Link Sep 21, 2007
American Genocide In The Middle East: Three Million and Counting PDF
by David Goodner CommonDreams.org August 8, 2007
The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal? Video Link
Wrecking Iraq: One Million Dead, 2 Million Wounded, 3 Million
Displaced Collateral Genocide PDF By MIKE FERNER May 11, 2007
Janis Karpinski helps to go after Rumsfeld in Germany PDF November
14th, 2006
The Deeper Reality Behind Rumsfeld's Resignation PDF By Chris Floyd
11/09/06
Bush confesses to war crimes PDF Nicolas J S Davies, Online Journal
Contributing Writer Sep 11, 2006
Retroactive War Crime Protection Proposed PDF by Pete Yost August 10,
2006
U.S. to drop Geneva rule, officials say PDF Clause bars humiliation,
degradation of detainees by Julian E. Barnes June 5, 2006
New Army documents reveal US knew of and approved torture before Abu
Ghraib scandal PDF RAW STORY May 2, 2006
Iran, Bush & Nuremberg PDF Peter Dyer, Consortiumnews.com May 16, 2006
U.S. prepares to face U.N. on torture as Amnesty report blasts 'war
crimes' PDF RAW STORY April 28, 2006
Former aide to Powell: authorization for torture came from "the very
top" PDF By Joanne Laurier 7 March 2006
One Thousand A Month Tortured To Death In Iraq PDF Paul Joseph
Watson/Prison Planet.com | February 21 2006 - the outgoing UN human
rights chief, Dr. John Pace, dropped a bombshell when he told an
obscure Maltese newspaper that as many as a thousand detainees a month
are being tortured to death in Iraq.
BREAKING - New Abu Ghraib Photos Released PDF Daily Kos February 14,
2006
Last month, President George W. Bush murdered four children PDF
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TORTURE MEMO SCANDAL PDF- This article ontains
serveral memos in .PDF format
Amnesty International Calls for Prosecutions of U.S. Officials PDF
Joshua Rubenstein interviewed by Scott Harris Between The Lines June
09, 2005
Amnesty Chief: US Kills Prisoners in Secret Jails PDF
New memo indicates Gen. Sanchez signed off on Abu Ghraib abuses,
perjured himself before Congress PDF
Suit Alleges Rumsfeld Approved Torture - Two U.S. human rights groups
sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday, saying he first
authorized and then failed to stop torture of prisoners in Iraq and
Afghanistan
US disclosures signal wider detainee abuse By Charlie Savage, Globe
Staff | December 26, 2004
IRAQI POW ABUSE - A document released for the first time today by the
American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an
Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods
against detainees in Iraq [PDF download].
Navy probes new Iraq prisoner photos / Navy says tactics seen in
photos OK PDF By Seth Hettena, AP December 3, 2004 [Will it be ok when
it happens to US soldiers? -ed.]
Soldier says Abu Ghraib interrogators told him to stage mock
electrocution Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Thursday October 21,
2004
Iraq abuse 'ordered from the top' - Brig Gen Janis Karpinski told the
BBC she was being made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by
others.
TEXT OF THE PENTAGON "TORTURE MEMO" Posted Jun 9, 2004 02:38 PM PST
[You know the one Rummy refuses to give to Congress! -ed.]
'US president not bound by laws banning torture' PDF Washington, June
7
Bush uses "war on terror" as a pretext to commit war crimes, then
White House lawyer tortures the truth. By Frederick Sweet
Bush’s legal propagandist defends the indefensible: torture in
Afghanistan and Iraq By Richard Hoffman and Mike Head 20 May 2004
US press accounts confirm: Rumsfeld, Bush approved Iraq torture policy
By Alex Lefebvre 18 May 2004
'Bush, Rumsfeld signed memo for Iraq abuse' Monday, 17 May , 2004
Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings By Michael Isikoff Monday 17 May 2004
Call on the German Federal Prosecutor to Investigate Rumsfeld and
Other U.S. Officials for War Crimes at Abu Ghraib Do it NOW!
>
>Mark
Mark Goldberg
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:45:59 -0400, Mark Goldberg
> <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> h...@nospam.org wrote:
>>> The Obscene Truth Behind The Iraq Surge
>>>
>
>
>> because it's a successful warrior religion' bit...
>>
>> Your love of the land and tyranny bit...
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
years ago....
And you're just a lowlife marxist whore. A man who wants death to swarm
the western world- as you've so adequately demonstrated, so very very
many times. Here's to your own hell, and may you dwell there, away, from
human beings....
Mark
Analysis: US Now Winning Iraq War That Seemed Lost
Last Edited: Saturday, 26 Jul 2008, 8:06 PM EDT
Created: Saturday, 26 Jul 2008, 8:06 PM EDT
A man makes a purchase at a marketplace in north Baghdad's Kazimiyah
neighborhood Wednesday, July 23, 2008. Systematic sectarian killings
have all but ended in the Iraqi capital, in large part because of tight
security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of
minorities in 2006. That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the
streets of the capital; people are expressing a new confidence in their
own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound
assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)
By ROBERT BURNS and ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press Writers
BAGHDAD -- The United States is now winning the war that two years ago
seemed lost.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in
Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi
government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat
to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace -- a transition that
many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point
where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have
the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in
Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time
when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase
focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of
illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and
local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into
legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.
Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of
Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings,
kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital
daily, has all but ceased.
This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a
fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held
power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago.
They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with
the Americans in return for money and political support.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated
Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of
al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the
war in Afghanistan.
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that
the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no
longer a threat to Iraq's future.
"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the
government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's
actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large,
what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."
Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada
al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major
cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the
Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring -- now a quiet though not
fully secure district.
Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a
comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support
among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of
Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.
Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming
victory or promising that the calm will last.
The premature declaration by the Bush administration of "Mission
Accomplished" in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public
relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with
the warning that "security is fragile" and that the improvements, while
encouraging, are "not irreversible."
Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power
struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab
tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.
But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S.
military's hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in
April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.
Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in
large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off
neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.
That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the
capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security
forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the
insurgency largely in retreat.
Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death
toll appears to be at its lowest of the war -- four killed in action so
far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a
daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has
plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the
nationwide total was 13.
Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.
In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and
picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago,
when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.
Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive
threads and weave them into a lasting stability.
The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help
will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The
questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential
election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the
other insisting on staying.
Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more
than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with
no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar
sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the
sacrifice could be squandered.
U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be
needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been
sustained over the first half of this year -- as the Pentagon withdrew
five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 -- the remaining
troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.
As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond
says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area
about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on
combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls
"nonkinetic" issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi
government institutions and humanitarian aid.
Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For
several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water
projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad,
then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora
district of southern Baghdad -- an area, now calm, that in early 2007
was one of the capital's most violent zones.
"We're getting close to something that looks like an end to mass
violence in Iraq," says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of
Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is
not ready to say it's over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from
fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.
Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have
surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary
Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the
insurgency -- a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their
big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with
ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.
Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour
in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:
"We've put out the forest fire. Now we're dealing with pop-up fires."
It's not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous
peace.
Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the
capital, sees the changes.
"Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today's Baghdad," he says.
------
EDITOR'S NOTE -- Robert Burns is AP's chief military reporter, and
Robert Reid is AP's chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war
from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns,
based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest
during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern
Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi
officers.
Mark Goldberg
The US got rid of a murdering tyrant who killed over 400,000 of his own.
Illegal....? The UN stood around, just as with Iran now, and the world
twiddled their thumbs. No, they stole 60 billion and allowed 30,000
youngsters to be killed so the socialist thugocracy could go on and make
a 'killing' off the monies...
they murdered a million Iraqi people,
Nope... but as the face of the system that butchered across a century
and across half the world, until it died... you know about denying and
caring nothing about numbers, or people.
we are
> stealing their oil, or the Bush government lied to the American
> people?
Nope on both. And the threads point: the surge worked.
>
> but it doesn't matter to you, does it Goldberg? Doesn't matter what
> happens to a bunch of stupid Goyim as long as Israel gets to profit at
> someone else's expense.
>
Again, you are a whore, a liar and want to be murderer who is a fucking
coward, and shown that your own words were utter lies. Utter lies... by
a man who has neither honor, nor integrity whatsoever, in those words,
in those assertions and of course, the man... who in light of all the
11,500 Jihadist attacks by Islam, across over 30 nations, since just
9/11, called for people to become muslims since it's a 'successful
warrior religion.
Boy... whoreboy, I'll have to really fight to keep people from killiing
you, and stringing you up. And I'll ironically be the one to say....'no,
as much as I'd like to put the bullet in his mouth, let the trial be,
let that mechanism work.
What an irony it will be. Me, holding back those who you jerk off to
lying too, dissimulating too and causing harm too.
Here's too the long slow incarceration getting fucked up your miserable
ass by bubba and the boys, when you get your just desserts, mountain rat.
And all the leftard rats, the dailykos rats of the left with their
insane lies and desires to end the west will go right with you....
You will see. And when you do- live long, long and agonizingly long
years, asshat. May your deranged evil marxist hatreds, your hatreds of
people, of nations, rot in that cell with you, with your moans bouncing
off the walls of your brain for you to worship your end and your death,
and may it not come. May you live long with it.
Mark
h...@nospam.org
<msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Boy... whoreboy, I'll have to really fight to keep people from killiing
>you, and stringing you up. And I'll ironically be the one to say....'no,
>as much as I'd like to put the bullet in his mouth, let the trial be,
>let that mechanism work.
any time you want to try, cocksucker, I'll send you a map. Make sure
you say goodbye to your diseased whore mother before you leave.
Hal
Mark Goldberg
> White House lawyer tortures the truth.
And all this is testimony to the dead driftwood that was disproven bs,
and lying... and worthy of your brain dead souless mind to dig it up.
Like your endless lying and distortions and hatreds... that have been
peddled to destroy western civilization. This better explained in an
artilce, which I've misplaced, but here are some thoughts from the writer:
many tens of millions of Americans have been conditioned, by decades of
leftist assaults on the legitimacy of their history and traditions, to
doubt that those traditions even merit a stiff defense. Only in such a
culture would so many people -- from anonymous men and women on any
street corner to the occupant of the Oval Office -- be so preoccupied
with reiterating, ad nauseam, the notion that authentic Islam is, at its
essence, a “religion of peace” that unfortunately was “hijacked” by a
“small minority of extremists.” Only in such a culture would it be
widely understood, as it is in America, that any deviation from these
absurd talking points opens one up to charges of “Islamophobia” and
“bigotry.”
Thus Americans have voluntarily placed themselves in a rhetorical and
ideological straight jacket, fearing to admit that they can even
perceive the plain reality that Islam’s predominant teachings and
emphases -- as set forth in the trilogy consisting of the Koran, the
Hadith, and the Sira -- differ greatly from those of Western religious
traditions.
Their fear of stating this simple, inarguable truth closely parallels
their fear of demanding that our nation strengthen its border security
to the point where illegal entry is made impossible -- lest they be
smeared as “racists” and “nativists” who are unconcerned with the
“dignity” and the “common humanity” of “impoverished undocumented
workers,” blah, blah, blah.
This type of trembling population -- echoing dutifully the cacophony of
empty platitudes uttered by all manner of America-hating, know-nothing
leftists in the political arena, in the media, in the pulpit, and in the
university classroom -- have provided Osama bin Laden with more than
enough assurance that he is facing an enemy ripe for slaughter on a
scale never before seen.
--------
And of course hal...you, with your filth- 'RMA'ers should become muslims
since it's a successful warrior religion'
Asshat... I'm going to have to use poles to prevent the crowds from
stringing you up and ripping your apart... all of which you deserve.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
Can't wait for you to say that too my face, asshole. You will live in a
hospital asking, 'why did I fuck with that guy, why??
Mark
h...@nospam.org
unfortunately for you, you lying Zionist scum, the majority of
Americans agree with me.
Hal
>
>Mark
Mark Goldberg
That's the level of your stupidity.
They most certainly, without a doubt, do not....
And that is of course, your fetid dream, your cowardly murderous
hatreds, whispering in your ear... telling you, 'if only if only if
only....'
but it ain't so, and won't be.
And you will beg for death in that cell.
And no one will answer.
Mark
Mike
> any time you want to try, cocksucker, I'll send you a map. Make sure
> you say goodbye to your diseased whore mother before you leave.
Is it going to be a real map to your real residence, or are you going
to later claim that you don't live there?
-Mike K.
Mark Goldberg
By Kathy Shaidle
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/30/2008
Barack Obama styles himself the candidate of “change” and “hope”. So
when his website “changed” to erase his well-known opposition to the
Iraq War surge, maybe the Senator “hoped” no one would notice.
In this day and age, that’s a foolish, not to mention cynical, conceit,
especially coming from the young, self-proclaimed “progressive”
Democrat. And it backfired. Even the Los Angeles Times picked up the
small but telling story after it first broke in the blogosphere.
“This last weekend,” the Wake Up Americans blog reported on July 15,
“Barack Obama's official website was ‘purged’ of his longstanding
criticisms of the troop surge...”
That “surge purge” came shortly before the candidate’s belated “fact
finding” visit to Iraq, his first trip in two years to the nation whose
impending doom he’d so confidently and frequently predicted.
Obama aide Wendy Morigi insisted that the web site deletions were simply
part of “normal activity to update the site as events and situations
change.”
But what about updating one’s views on the most important foreign policy
issue of the times, “as events and situations change”? Apparently, the
presumptive Democratic nominee for President doesn’t consider that a
priority. Obama’s denunciations of the Iraq War and the surge strategy
persist, even after his trip to Iraq – a trip that would have been
impossible had the surge been a failure; the very leaders he shook hands
with in Baghdad would have been killed, jailed or exiled under Saddam
Hussein.
Despite his campaign’s attempts to cover up the facts, Barack Obama’s
firm opposition to the surge is well documented. Back on January, 2007,
Obama opined that, with Sunni and Shia factions unwilling to compromise,
the threat of U.S. troop withdrawal was America’s only leverage. Rather
than bring security to the region, Obama insisted, “I think it will do
the reverse.”
He declared:
"We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops:
I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've
spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a
substantial difference on the situation on the ground."
Obama based his campaign for President in part on his long standing
opposition to the Iraq War and the surge, in contrast to his fellow
Democrat candidates. Over a year later, with the surge strategy
achieving positive results, Obama’s top adviser, David Axelrod, denied
that his boss had ever said the surge would fail, despite video proof to
the contrary.
Those positive results include the achievement of 15 out of the highly
touted 18 political benchmarks for success. This month, violence is down
90 percent over 2007 -- its lowest point in the last four years. The
estimated 12,000 al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq in May dropped to
approximately 1,200 by July – an astonishing accomplishment in only two
months. The chaotic Anbar province is experiencing an “awakening” of
peace and prosperity. U.S. trained Iraqi security forces are policing
more than half the nation’s provinces, and plan to take charge of them
all by the end of this year. Oil production is back up to 2.5 million
barrels a day, and oil revenue sharing has begun. Iraq recently
normalized relations between Kuwait and other countries in the region.
“To be sure,” editorialized Investors Business Daily, “there is still
violence, internecine conflicts between tribes and clans, sporadic
jousting between rival militias, and of course, an ongoing struggle
between Shias and Sunnis. But then, that pretty much describes the last
1,000 years of Iraq's history.”
In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran on July 21, Obama was asked:
Moran: “(...) U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so
far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again. If you
had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you -- would
you support the surge?"
Obama: "No, because -- keep in mind that -"
Moran: "You wouldn't?"
Obama: "Well, no, keep -- these kinds of hypotheticals are very
difficult . Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced
of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because
the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just
disagreed with."
Obama explained that he hadn’t anticipated the so-called Sunni
Awakening, and insisted that such positive developments “came right at
the same time as terrific work by our troops,” implying that any gains
were simply an inexplicable coincidence. “My batting average” in terms
of making foreign policy predictions, Obama told Moran, “is still pretty
darn good.” Asked if he thinks the U.S. will win the war, Obama responds
wanly, “I don’t think we have any choice.”
To her credit, CBS news anchor Katie Couric (of all people) pressed
Obama on this issue on July 22, right after he’d returned from his tour
of the Iraq and Afghanistan:
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of
30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have
said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce
violence. There's no doubt.
Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still
wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion
to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone
into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into
Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a
declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have
been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were
reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in
many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into
consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or
strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm
really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level
of security in Iraq …
Obama: Yes.
Couric … would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my
approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a
political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say
is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a
reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just
yesterday, but I've said that previously. What that doesn't change is
that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to
make America as safe as possible.
So Obama’s stance against the surge has remained firm, which at least
has the advantage of being consistent. Many of his fellow Democrats
didn’t think the U.S. should send any troops to Iraq, then complained
that not enough had been deployed in the first place, then opposed the
surge strategy designed to put more troops on the ground.
Consistency has its virtues, but good judgment must count for more.
Obama won his party’s nomination because he was against the Iraq war
from the very beginning. This, he insisted, proved that what he might
lack in experience, he made up for in superior judgment. However,
current events on the ground prove that Obama was simply wrong about the
surge, and is deeply reluctant to admit it. Poor judgment and
intransigence is merely embarrassing in a Presidential candidate; it
could be fatal in a Commander in Chief.
John Dickerson, chief political correspondent at Slate.com (hardly a
hotbed of pro-McCain enthusiasms) asked pointedly:
“If Obama was wrong about the tactical gains that would be made by the
new strategy and wrong about how the Iraqi political leaders would
react, can his larger theory about how Iraqis will respond to a troop
pullout remain intact? Perhaps, but he has the burden of explanation.
Does he elide contradictions, claim they're irrelevant, and generally
spin? In his interview with NBC's Brian Williams, he suggested that he'd
always said the surge would decrease violence in Iraq. That's not just
spin. It's not true.”
Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings
Institution, has confessed that he’s “livid” about Obama’s continued
insistence on a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq by 2010:
"To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of
what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of
what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity. I'm not
going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be
president. I'll leave that to someone else."
Unlike his party’s presumptive nominee, O’Hanlon has admitted publicly
and repeatedly that his expert opinions on the surge’s inevitable
failure turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Why his candidate can’t do
the same is more than a mystery. It is deeply troubling.
A blogger since 2000, Kathy Shaidle runs FiveFeetOfFury.com. Her new
e-book Acoustic Ladyland has been called a "must read" by Mark Steyn.