The UN, US and Iraq IV

A global Monroe Doctrine? It's more like a global manifest destiny.

United Press International November 14, 2003
Crucial weeks in Iraq

In-Depth Coverage

By NICHOLAS M. HORROCK, UPI Chief White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Nov 14, 2003 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- The next 45 days will be a crucial measure of whether the Bush administration can get control in Iraq and end the accelerating pace of insurgency, according to defense experts and military planners.

"The wild card is whether these most recent attacks are the Ramadan offensive," argued John E. Pike, director of the defense and security think tank GlobalSecurity.org, "a maximum effort for the insurgency and January looks like June or things get worse and January looks like November."

The top U.S. administrator in Iraq, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, returned to Baghdad mid-week with orders to accelerate the transfer of authority to the Iraqi people at the same time that the U.S. Army began new tough attacks against insurgents, conducting ground-level raids and air raids with C-130 gunships carrying 105mm cannons.

For President Bush this has been both a momentous and a disturbing week in Iraq. Some 18 Italians and 10 Iraqis died when Italian field police headquarters was struck by a car bomb. This came within days of ground attacks downing two U.S. helicopters with a total of 22 deaths and the leak of a CIA report that found increasing attacks on Americans and eroding support from Iraqis.

Bush summoned Bremer to the White House early this week and sent him back with orders to speed up the transfer of responsibilities to the Iraq people.

"It is still important that the Iraqi people have a permanent constitution. It's still important that they have elections for a permanent government. Nothing has changed," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters at the White House Thursday.

"But what is also important is that we find ways to accelerate the transfer of authority to the Iraqi people. They are clamoring for it, they are, we believe, ready for it. And they have strong ideas about how that might be done."

U.S. Central Command head Gen. John Abizaid, who directs the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, gave a detailed briefing Thursday estimating there are no more than 5,000 people, mainly Baathists, armed and operating against the allied forces in Iraq. Although this is a relatively small number, Abizaid said, "when you understand that they're organized in cellular structure, that they have a brutal and determined cadre, that they know how to operate covertly, that they access to a lot of money and a lot of ammunition, you'll understand how dangerous they are."

Despite the danger, Abizaid said, "there is no military threat in Iraq that can drive us out. We have the best-equipped, best-trained army in the world, in positions in the toughest areas that we have to deal with. The troops are confident, they're tough, they're capable." Abizaid said not only senior officers but also young lieutenants and captains that he worked with at West Point were filled with confidence.

He dismissed the CIA report, but acknowledged there is a difficulty with intelligence. "Clearly we need better intelligence at the regional and national level," he said, adding that it is clear Iraqis are able to coordinate attacks on a regional and national basis.

"The goal of the enemy is to break the will of the United States of America. It's clear, it's simple, it's straightforward. Break our will, make us leave before Iraq is ready to come out and be a member of the responsible community of nations. That's their goal," Abizaid said.

The developments in Iraq have reminded many Americans of the frustrations of Vietnam 35 years ago. When asked about how effective he thought last week's air attack against a warehouse was, Pike laughed and said should it should be called "Rolling Thunder or Arc Light," the names for B-52 bombing campaigns in Vietnam.

But Pike does not believe the enemy in this juncture can produce another Vietnam. "Five thousand insurgents -- that's not the Viet Cong, that's not the NVA (North Vietnamese Army)."

Pike is one of a large group of former military officers and defense planners who believe the United States will be in Iraq for years, maintaining a force of 50,000 or so to give stability to a civil government. "I don't think we're ever going to leave, at least not in my lifetime. It is just too important a locale."

He argues that the crucial period for Bush is unfolding. A central question will be whether the president can keep the insurgency successes down and American commitment up until a significant force of Iraqis can be put in the field.

"We're building Iraqi forces from zero in May up to well over 100,000 today," Abizaid said, but he has said the training will take time.

But Pike and others, like former Army Col. Dennis Lewis, who has advised United Press International on military affairs, argue that Americans have been in part misled by the up-and-down nature of the reports from Iraq.

"These things are not surprising," Lewis said

Absolutely

"...countered by the contention by the Right that armed intervention was the last available and circumstance-mandated option..."

Well (hup) there you go again... (Reagan).

Timber, once again you beg the questions:

What "circumstance" related to Iraq "mandated" intervention (as more crucial to our survival than neutralizing lethal weapons in other countries we have solid proof of, or as opposed to other "brutal dictators" we might have deposed)?

What mandate was there for preemptive attack? Certainly not a UN or allied mandate. Certainly not a mandate given by the people to their president -- no such thing was proposed during the presidential campaign, nor does a candidate who ascended to the presidency with no victory margin have a political mandate.

Even if one were to push these two gigantic boulders out of your path, how do you explain having left out a crucial element of what you assert the Left's "contention" to be? You write about the "contention by the Left that nothing in the matter of Iraq justified armed intervention" whereas in fact the Left contended then and can rightfully assert now that there was NO PROOF of the existence of what the Right used to justify intervention.

You can't have it both ways -- and it would help if you stated the positions more carefully, Timber.

So presumably war, or just killing people in general, is ok so long as you mean well?



completely fallacious argument. The comparison with Hitler is a non sequitur. Being proved right after the event doesn't count for anything except hubris.

a



Thats a good Hitlerism



Why? It would make the US Empire quite unlike any other before it.

Well it is now you have made it so. Bush admits Saddam had nothing to do with 911.

You making a pitch for your own religion now Timber?

Reuters, 20 minutes ago

Timber, I read a book or saw a movie or had a dream once about the way war was handled in the future. The gist was that sometime in the future, war was abolished between humans. Realizing that things like over population resulting in famine, disease etc., I don't remember the specifics, the thought was that war was neccessary for the propagation of the species. The panacea decided upon was to fight wars using a computer model, like a board game. The computer decided the most likely outcome and then generated a list of deaths resultant from the battle, randomly chose a list of names from a data base of citizens, then sent notification to those citizens that they were to report immediatly for voluntary euthanasia. Neat and tidy, war with no damage to the planet or wasting of resources.

You state that casualties, deaths, are a part of war, the ends out weight the means ... I wonder, if you were notified to report for euthanasia, would you?

Gel, its from a Star Trek episode. "Return of the Archons."

Baghdad - Twelve coalition troops were killed when two US helicopters crashed Saturday in northern Iraq, as the US-led interim administration announced elections would be held here by end-2005.

"There are 12 coalition soldiers killed and nine wounded," a spokesman told AFP. A military official had earlier said that the two Blackhawk helicopters crashed west of Mosul.
An Iraqi police officer said that he saw assailants ambushing a US foot patrol in the area, prompting the intervention of a Blackhawk helicopter.

A missile was then fired towards the chopper, which crashed into a second Blackhawk as it tried to dodge the missile, he said.

well if this thread is degenerating to star treck...bye

Source

That's the oddest story, Brand, full of supposition and "as if," and oddest of all is that it dates back to last June. Since it appeared months ago in a major newspaper, one would think that it would have been shouted from the rafters by a desperate administration, if it had any validity at all. But there is something hesitant and less than credible about it -- and in the end it makes me think I'd be accused of being a shill for "new world order" because of the photo of me and Henry K at the same cocktail party.

Here's a link to a follow-up piece by the same judge, claiming a gag order... http://www.tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/35079430.shtml

Hmmmm.......Who was it that said people end up with the governments they deserve?

As I recall, this administration said we'll not spend a day longer than necessary in Iraq. They are now 'demanding' that the US selected Iraqi government take over by June 2004. The timing is curious, because of the November 2004 elections. Any connection?

quite simply, this is just freakin' bizarre.

Yes, very good. That's how it seems to me.

We hope to protest this with Mr Bush this week. Read the British press to see how we got on, in case news coverage of the protests is filtered in the US media.

Neo con= Neo Fascist Imperialists
"It was proven beyond rational argument to have been absurd to assume Hitler's Germany was safely contained in the 1930s."

A theory: If the Western nations would have intervened in and stopped the Spanish Civil War, The Third reich may have been contained.

Saddam was not expanding his little empire and was no threat to his neighbors and especially not the USA. In fact, he was made weak by constant USA bombing. Had the USA been convinced that he had WMD and would use them there would have been no invasion.

The invasion of Iraq was a plan of Impire Building, first step for dominating the ME.

it all goes back to the first thanksgiving when the amerinds (for dietic reasons) did not eat the pilgrims.

their mistake.