The UN, US and Iraq IV

So what, we make Chalabi President by order of King George II? Yeah, that'll wow 'em in Baghdad.

If, as is very likely, the Army gets a grip on this and begins to put the the Ba'ahtists out of business, it'll be despite Rummy and Co., not because of them.

Wilso asked




Because of all the reasons Bush epoused and ignored.
Because we **** on the worlds door step and are incapable of cleaning up.
Because evil cannot be allowed to triumph.

SOURCE

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Sabotage of Democracy

"The president cannot be flying up there every single week."

I don't think that Bush is thinking, "Hey, the public don't know soldiers are being killed." I'ts more likey the media is upset it can't get it's lenses on everything it wants to. I'm sure the returning dead and their families are being justly acknowledged, just not the way media wants it.

We have to remind ourselves now and then that many of those who are under fire in Iraq are the private contractors -- military, not Halliburton -- which the Pentagon hires to do its dirty work internationally (see stories on Dyncorp et al) and because the deaths of mercenaries do NOT have to be reported.

If you were to inquire how many American soldiers/personnel have been killed in Iraq, you would not be given names or numbers of private contractors/mercenaries.

Kara say's



Hey ... you go girl

The vote is being taken on cspan

Kara (oh vision of radiant beauty....see its not just Gautam ) you make an excellent point



and I acknowledge it's a weakness in my argument. I guess its partly out of frustration I feel I have to do something. You talk about time an patience..I agree. But how much time? And God knows we've been patient.

I'll try and answer the obvious question...What would I do? Its probably a bit easier for me to answer as a Brit than it is for an American. But I would announce that British troops are to be withdrawn fully by the new year and in the meantime will stay in compound. The Americans should do something similar perhaps over a longer time scale. In the meantime a crash programme of handing real power to the IGC should be initiated.

Can civil war be avoided if the coalition forces withdraw? Big question. Perhaps they need a strong man back like Saddam to keep them all in check.

But its all (my above sentiments) pie in the sky anyway. The Americans were never in Iraq to find WMD nor to build democracy. Its pure imperialism, and imperial might is not going to be deflected by a few body bags coming home.

While it could happen, I doubt it ... Its my impression Chalabi hauls too much domestic baggage to haul himself aboard the coming constitutional government, let alone to its top. He's not real popular even among the Interim Council, which itself is one of the key difficulties confronting the Council.


Kinda sorta, but that's pretty much the deal with any military endeavor. The civilian leadership lays out the mission, the military accomplishes it despite the meddling, misdirection, and obstructionism of the civilian leadership. One thing which significantly differentiates the military conduct of affairs in Iraq from that of Vietnam is that the on-scene military in Iraq, from Command Staff on down, has far more discretion and lattitude than ever was allowed in Vietnam. Abizaid's relocation to Doha will only enhance this. The addition of highly mobile light armored assets, as with the so-called "Stryker Brigade" about to be deployed in-theater, the employment of AC-130s and drones, greater empowerment of and integration with indiginous forces, and an ability to act and react without waiting hours or days for Pentagon approval will, IMO, have a most beneficial impact.

"iron hammer" will (in the Israel traditon) most likely result in increased civilian deaths which, in turn, result in increased sympathy for the "insurgents" but thats just my opinion.

Steve, civil war is indeed what would happen if the coalition pulls out.

There is no way we can hand the governing of Iraq over to the Council. They are disagreeing amonst themselves, and they seem to be moving very slowly with the work they have set out to do, which may be cultural. Perhaps they are just traditionally not inclined toward hurry up, hurry up, the American way of doing things.

The Grand Ayatollah Sistani (see article above) might accept appointment as interim leader or administrator of the country, but then again, he probably wouldn't compromise his integrity. With his knowledge of the culture, he could advise on appointments. He would have real power, whether given it or not, because of the respect he commands. The problem is, he's probably smarter than Bremer which might cause trouble.

Steve, I disagree with you about imperialism as the only motive. I think the admininstration had a number of motives: Getting rid of Saddam, a convenient and hated target; the influence of the neo-cons who have a glorified vision of American's destiny as Enforcer of all things good and beautiful (probably what you mean by imperialism...LOL); the desire for a Middle East stronghold, from which the US can influence the area and from which they can protect the oil supply. I think they knew all along there were no WMDs, but that really got the populace behind the war, that and the hoked-up connection with 9-11.

O vision of radiant beauty, eh? I should post a photo of myself which would bring you to your knees (not in homage but in laughter.) Then, again, I won't. This is more fun.

Kara, you gorgeous morsel, your last paragraph I can completely agree with. It's all about economic interest, we're not in the humanitarian business per se, definitely more than a few reasons for being there. The sales pitch was the political wrapper that you have peeled away.

Dubya, Rumsfeld and Company have their work cut our for them. The Japanese won't send troops, the Corporations who will send workers over for the reconstruction are vacillating and in general it's not looking good unless they can squelch this guerilla warfare now. I don't see them having much change of doing that.

Kara: The entire Middle East is gearing up for what amounts to a civil war (and some would characterize it as such right now).

The generals keep saying they don't need any more troops, could be propaganda though. I think if the insurgents keep hitting targets not related to Iraq, it will backfire on them and make other coalition types to get involved.

I expect that if the recent adjustments of The Current Administration's Iraq policy prove efficacious (as I expect will prove to be the case), international reluctance to support and participate in stabilization will be supplanted by international eagerness to reap the benefits gained therefrom. Fewer ever wish to take part in the baking of the cake than subsequently clammer to participate in the eating of it.

BrandX, some generals have said that, and the administration insists it is true, or rather Rumsfeld does. It is difficult to believe them -- impossible, in fact -- in light of the worsening situation. The problem is that we don't HAVE troops to send to Iraq, and the administration just won't admit it. We are spread too thin already, and there is no way we could send the 30,000-40,000 soldiers that might put paid to this whole thing in a month or two. If we'd had 200,000 troops in the country at the end of the first phase of the war, Iraq would look entirely different right now.

What information are you privy to, Timber, that leads you to believe that the changes that are planned will help the situation there or are you just being ungroundedly and persistently optimistic ?