Quote:Many Iraqi voters want coalition soldiers out
Sun Dec 4, 2005 12:43 PM GMT169
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS
By Omar al-Ibadi
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Anti-Western feeling is running high ahead of Iraq's election this month and many voters think sending U.S. troops home should be the priority of the next government, an informal survey by Reuters indicated.
Campaigning for the December 15 parliamentary election has not focussed much on the U.S.-led occupation, but one finding of a survey of dozens of voters by Reuters was the desire for foreign troops to leave the country.
In the campaign, it has been some Sunni Arab minority parties who, in common with rebel groups from the once-dominant Sunni community, have made foreign troop withdrawal a prime demand.
Other politicians, however, know they need U.S. soldiers to stop the Sunni-led insurgency tipping Iraq into civil war, but many of their constituents think the troops make matters worse.
"The occupation forces should withdraw so that we can feel secure. Every day I feel panic when I go to college due to blasts and random shootings," said Israa Mohammad, a 22-year-old student interviewed on the campus of Baghdad University.
That view was reflected in the survey of voters in Baghdad, Kirkuk, Basra, Hilla and Najaf in which more people chose the withdrawal of foreign troops as the priority for next year than chose a more general wish for security.
Animosity towards U.S., British and other Coalition soldiers, whom many Iraqis have come to see as contributing to rather than halting violence, underscores Washington's failure to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis 30 months after invading.
It also chimes with growing unpopularity over the war back in the United States.
"When Iraq was occupied by U.S forces, they promised to spread democracy. But what had happened is the opposite; democracy produced slaughter, killing and kidnapping," said Mohammed Sulabi, who was also interviewed in Baghdad.
In the Reuters survey, 59 of the 131 people who indicated a preference said that the withdrawal of foreign troops was the most pressing priority for the next government.
These included respondents from Hilla and Najaf, which are mainly Shi'ite towns supportive of the present, Shi'ite-led government. In Basra, Iraq's Shi'ite second city, occupied by British troops, security in general was the overriding concern and there was no clear preference for foreign troops to go home.
Voters were asked to choose one of five main options as the priority for the next government: withdrawal of foreign troops; general security; jobs; electricity and water services and human rights.
In addition to the 59 who placed troop withdrawal top, 49 named security, 11 human rights and seven said jobs. Five offered other suggestions not on the main list.
Some formal opinion polls have been conducted in Iraq since the April 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein. But most are sponsored by official bodies and have either skirted the topic of the occupation, or kept them private.
However, a secret national survey in August for Britain's Ministry of Defence found 82 percent of respondents were "strongly opposed" to foreign troops on Iraqi soil, according to a report in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.
(Additional reporting by Aseel Kami)
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
Anyway you look at it the situation is headed for the same end .... stop digging ...
"Victory in Aeraq" is an oxymoron. This administration still doesn't get it!
An in depth investigation on Iraq by the Knight-Ridder media giant found the following:
Quality of Life and Economy: Iraqi civilians killed: Estimated March 2003-October 31, 2005: 15,800-27,800. Including crime: 36,700-74,200.
Oil: Millions of barrels per day Prewar production: 2.5, export: 2.5. March 2005 Prouction: 1.9, export 1.2.
Electricity: Megawatts generated nationwide pre-war: 4,000, Baghdad 2,500. March 2005: megawatts nationwide: 3,600, Baghdad 990.
Only telephone subscribers and internet subscribers increased.
A picture of the insurgency: Number of Iraqi soldiers and police killed per month: 214.
Iraqi forces killed by insurgents per month in the last half of 2004:160
Estimated maximum number of insurgents in Iraq: 20,000.
Measuring victory *(by Bush): By stating his benchmarks Wednesday for victory in Iraq, President Bush raised an obvious question: How is Iraq doing? The short answer: It's a mess.. Yes, there are signs of progress amid the carnage, but for every step forward, there seems to eb at least one step back, and the future is murky.
This congress will never consider the impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. They are not only spineless, but scared for their own skins - like the generals.
Which would you bet on?
1. When the USA withdraws its troops from Iraq, then the abettors of the murderers of Iraqi civilians and the murderers of Iraqi civilians will stop murdering Iraqi civilians.
2. When the abettors of the murderers of Iraqi civilians and the murderers of Iraqi civilians stop murdering Iraqi civilians, then the USA will withdraw its troops from Iraq.
3. When the government of Iraq decides Iraqi troops can stop the abettors of the murderers of Iraqi civilians and the murderers of Iraqi civilians from murdering Iraqi civilians, then the USA will withdraw its troops from Iraq.
Declare "victory and get out," as George Aiken, the Republican senator from Vermont, would famously suggest years later?
December 4, 2005
Op-Ed Contributors
What Would J.F.K. Have Done?
By THEODORE C. SORENSEN and ARTHUR SCHLESINGER Jr.
WHAT did we not hear from President Bush when he spoke last week at the United States Naval Academy about his strategy for victory in Iraq?
We did not hear that the war in Iraq, already one of the costliest wars in American history, is a running sore. We did not hear that it has taken more than 2,000 precious American lives and countless - because we do not count them - Iraqi civilian lives. We did not hear that the struggle has dragged on longer than our involvement in either World War I or the Spanish-American War, or that by next spring it will be even longer than the Korean War.
And we did not hear how or when the president plans to bring our forces back home - no facts, no numbers on America troop withdrawals, no dates, no reference to our dwindling coalition, no reversal of his disdain for the United Nations, whose help he still expects.
Neither our military, our economy nor our nation can take that kind of endless and remorseless drain for an only vaguely defined military and political mission. If we leave early, the president said, catastrophe might follow. But what of the catastrophe that we are prolonging and worsening by our continued presence, including our continued, unforgivable mistreatment of detainees?
Each month that America continues its occupation facilitates Al Qaeda's recruitment of young Islamic men and women as suicide bombers, the one weapon against which our open society has no sure defense. The president says we should support our troops by staying the course; but who is truly willing to support our troops by bringing them safely home?
The responsibility for devising an exit plan rests primarily not with the war's opponents, but with the president who hastily launched a pre-emptive invasion without enough troops to secure Iraq's borders and arsenals, without enough armor to protect our forces, without enough allied support and without adequate plans for either a secure occupation or a timely exit.
As we listened to Mr. Bush's speech, our thoughts raced back four decades to another president, John F. Kennedy. In 1963, the last year of his life, we watched from front-row seats as Kennedy tried to figure out how best to extricate American military advisers and instructors from Vietnam.
Although neither of us had direct responsibility on Vietnam decision-making, we each saw enough of the president to sense his growing frustration. In typical Kennedy fashion, he would lean back, in his Oval Office rocker, tick off all his options and then critique them:
Renege on the previous Eisenhower commitment, which Kennedy had initially reinforced, to help the beleaguered government of South Vietnam with American military instructors and advisers?
No, he knew that the American people would not permit him to do that.
Americanize the Vietnam civil war, as the military recommended and as his successor Lyndon Johnson sought ultimately to do, by sending in American combat units?
No, having learned from his experiences with Cuba and elsewhere that conflicts essentially political in nature did not lend themselves to a military solution, Kennedy knew that the United States could not prevail in a struggle against a Vietnamese people determined to oust, at last, all foreign troops from their country.
Moreover, he knew firsthand from his World War II service in the South Pacific the horrors of war and had declared at American University in June 1963: "This generation of Americans has had enough - more than enough - of war."
Declare "victory and get out," as George Aiken, the Republican senator from Vermont, would famously suggest years later?
No, in 1963 in Vietnam, despite assurances from field commanders, there was no more semblance of "victory" than there was in 2004 in Iraq when the president gave his "mission accomplished" speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
Explore, as was always his preference, a negotiated solution?
No, he was unable to identify in the ranks of the disorganized Vietcong a leader capable of negotiating enforceable and mutually agreeable terms of withdrawal.
Insist that the South Vietnamese government improve its chances of survival by genuinely adopting the array of political, economic, land and administrative reforms necessary to win popular support?
No, Kennedy increasingly realized that the corrupt family and landlords propping up the dictatorship in South Vietnam would never accept or enforce such reforms.
Eventually he began to understand that withdrawal was the viable option. From the spring of 1963 on, he began to articulate the elements of a three-part exit strategy, one that his assassination would prevent him from pursuing. The three components of Kennedy's exit strategy - well-suited for Iraq after the passage of a new constitution and the coming election - can be summarized as follows:
Make clear that we're going to get out. At a press conference on Nov. 14, 1963, the president did just that, stating, "That is our object, to bring Americans home."
Request an invitation to leave. Arrange for the host government to request the phased withdrawal of all American military personnel - surely not a difficult step in Iraq, especially after the clan statement last month calling for foreign forces to leave. In a May 1963 press conference, Kennedy declared that if the South Vietnamese government suggested it, "we would have some troops on their way home" the next day.
Bring the troops home gradually. Initiate a phased American withdrawal over an unannounced period, beginning immediately, while intensifying the training of local security personnel, bearing in mind that with our increased troop mobility and airlift capacity, American forces are available without being stationed in hazardous areas. In September 1963, Kennedy said of the South Vietnamese: "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it." A month later, he said, "It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans" in Vietnam by the end of the year.
President Kennedy had no guarantee that any of these three components would succeed. In the "fog of war," there are no guarantees; but an exit plan without guarantees is better than none at all.
If we leave Iraq at its own government's request, our withdrawal will be neither abandonment nor retreat. Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay. The president has said we will not leave Iraq to the terrorists. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis, who have survived centuries of civil war, tyranny and attempted foreign domination.
Once American troops are out of Iraq, people around the world will rejoice that we have recovered our senses. What's more, the killing of Americans and the global loss of American credibility will diminish. As Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam veteran, said, "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Defeatist? The real defeatists are those who say we are stuck there for the next decade of death and destruction.
In a memorandum to President Kennedy, roughly three months after his inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to Vietnam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today, Iraq is an even clearer example.
Theodore C. Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. were, respectively, special counsel and special assistant to President John F. Kennedy.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
listened to tim russert ("meet the press") on nbc this sunday morning. he interviewed the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 commission (one repub/one dem).
when asked about any connections betweem el quaida and saddam h , they stated : " we found NO creditable evidence connecting the two " .
i guess it's what you call "from the horse's mouth " , except there were two - couldn't have been any clearer .
i'm sure some other a2k's listened to it also. hbg
Only people like icant doesn't "get it." He keeps repeating the same rhetoric he learned right after 9-11 from the Bush PR people.
Pay attention!
Iraq is not like a fight with communism in Vietnam or Korea or Cuba. Communism eventually self-distructs when contained.
Winning the deadly war in the currently deadly location of Iraq is a required step by the al Qaeda religion in winning the al Qaeda religion's more deadly world war. The al Qaeda religion will not self-distruct when contained, because it cannot be contained. It will grow everywhere like a malignancy until it is exterminated.
Lose the deadly war in Iraq and we will be confronted by a more deadly war at a more deadly location.
Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi
www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html
Quote:A summary of Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi July 9, 2005.
The war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad.
The war will not end with an American departure.
The strategic vision is one of inevitable conflict with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.
Popular support must be maintained at least until jihadist rule has been established.
More than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."
Letter in English at:
www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf
George Bush is not the problem. Al Qaeda is the problem.
Public opinion is the solution. Win public opinion and the al Qaeda problem is solvable. Lose public opinion and the al Qaeda problem is not solvable.
note to c.i. : seems that the chair and vice-chair (one rep/one dem) haven't got a clue .
they had a few other choice words to say, particularly about the unpreparedness of the united states to stop or deal with another terrorist attack, example : emergency crews (police, fire fighters etc.) are still unable to communicate on a single band - four years after 9/11 . they blame it on not setting priorities ; spread the blame evenly between congress and the pressident - but what do they know. hbg
Al Qaida was responsible for 9-11. Our attack on Iraq only exacerbated the al Qaida problem and other terrorists organizations in Iraq.
After 2 and 2/3rds year in Iraq, world terrorism only increased. More Iraqis and American soldiers are being killed today than before 9-11 or March 2003.
Bush and his minions never understood the quagmire that would be created by mishandling the war in Iraq and its aftermath. That's the reason why Cheney said our military will be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis.
Most Iraqis and the present government wants the US to leave their country, because they see it as an occupation - as does most Arabs in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Our presence in Iraq only exacerbates the insurgent's to kill more Americans and Iraqis.
Over 60 percent of Americans now see the damage done by Bushco, and only 30 percent now support this administration.
By your stance, you are saying that the majority of Americans and our allies are wrong.
You need to look in the mirror once in awhile to see who's peering back at you. Your minority opinion and stance is getting smaller every month.
hamburger wrote: ..." we found NO creditable evidence connecting the two " ...
Get the whole story.
They found no credible evidence connecting Saddam to al Qaeda in al Qaeda's perpetration of 9/11/2001. However, they did find credible evidence connecting the two after 9/11/2001.
For example:
Quote:The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.4, page 61, note 54".
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
...
In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.[/b]54
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
It [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] was formed in December 2001
...
At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.
i don't want to quibble over words ... but they were pretty clear in their comments. i didn't have the impression that they were trying to hide any imformation or make false statements.
i sure give them credit for being forthright and to the point.
hope there are some others here who listened to them . i think the show is being repeated sunday night on CNBC . so perhaps there is a chance to listen to them . hbg
Katrina proved that this administration's incompetence extends far beyond Iraq.
cicerone imposter wrote:
...
More Iraqis and American soldiers are being killed today than before 9-11 or March 2003.
...
Most Iraqis and the present government wants the US to leave their country, because they see it as an occupation - as does most Arabs in the Middle East and elsewhere.
...
Over 60 percent of Americans now see the damage done by Bushco, and only 30 percent now support this administration.
...
ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
icant, You can keep repeating that stale phrase, but you'll go down with Bush repeating it like his speech last Wednesday.
cicerone imposter wrote:Katrina proved that this administration's incompetence extends far beyond Iraq.
Lousiana's Democrat governor?
New Orlean's Democrat mayor?
ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
cicerone imposter wrote:icant, You can keep repeating that stale phrase, but you'll go down with Bush repeating it like his speech last Wednesday.
ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
