0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 11:01 am
It's not surprising Colin Powell is no longer in the administration; he's not a "yes" man like all the others.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 11:11 am
Always respected Powell. They did him dirty.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 12:36 pm
Set, if you have anything to say about what I actually wrote, I'll consider discussing it with you. I won't respond in-kind to hyperbolic tirades, only loosely reflective of any points I made. Seriously; you even object when I concur with you; with the same vitriol and endless parade of childish slights. I don't remember you always having been this slanted.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 12:40 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Set, if you have anything to say about what I actually wrote, I'll consider discussing it with you. I won't respond in-kind to hyperbolic tirades, only loosely reflective of any points I made. Seriously; you even object when I concur with you; with the same vitriol and endless parade of childish slights. I don't remember you always having been this slanted.


I've always heard that memory was the first thing to go.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 12:41 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 12:44 pm
There was no slant. I had responded to McG's comments about demoncracy in Iraq by pointing out that the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites, and that therefore a democratic government is necessarily a Shi'ite government. You resonded with a remark about what is "silly," upon which i commented. You responded with a remark about what constitutes our vested interests, to which i responded. You resonded with a remark about whites being the majority in our nation, and yet our nation is still democratic--that strongly suggests that were the standard applied in Iraq, the government can be Shi'ite and democratic.

If you don't disagree with that, then i wonder why you would reply with the contention that what i had written was silly. I cannot for a moment accept the contention that enforcing a government upon Iraq which is sufficiently undemocratic as to accord to the Kurds and the Sunni Arabs a veto over the Shi'ite majority is in our vested interest. I cannot for a moment accept a contention that were a Klansman elected to the Presidency, anyone else in the world would have either the right or a plausible chance to intervene--although that is certainly the kind of thinking which many supporters of the Shrub and his dirty little war consider reasonable.

My responses were far from loosely based, they directly answered your remarks, and with reference to my disagreement with McG, which is what you quoted when you chose to refer to what i had written as "silly."

Pot, meet kettle.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 03:04 pm
Not so Set. The idea that a majority of Shi'ites wouldn't dominate an Iraqi democracy is what I agreed was silly... not your comment. Your enormous Strawman about other countries adjusting the U.S. by force does qualify as quite silly however, and beyond pointing that out, isn't worth addressing. Tone down the hyperbole about 20 clicks if you want me to respond.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 03:27 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you look closely, you can actually see visions of post-war Japan and Germany dancing in their eyes.


Good on you to reasonably sum up PNAC. Most of your "lies" are in fact foolish political shortcomings, but not lies. Exaggeration is standard in politics and I would agree it's a pity that Bush oversold with such vigor... but I can't agree that his mistakes added up to lies, let alone treason. I further disagree that the American people wouldn't have bought it without the overselling. Post 9-11, the general public's mindset shifted as much as the President's. I think we all re-assessed our threat tolerance and a majority could easily have been convinced pulling the plug on Iraq's decade of defiance was the prudent thing to do. We'll never know, but you are just as wrong to assume they wouldn't as I am to assume they would have. There is room to reasonably disagree here.

There is also room to reasonably disagree on what post-war Iraq will look like. "Japan and Germany"? I believe eventually this is possible. It's a tougher row to hoe but I don't think the people are any less deserving nor will I ever believe they are incapable of embracing self-determination. Should this opinion ever be proven correct; the United States of America will have given Iraqis the greatest gift of all. Life. A real one.


Thanks for the balanced response, O'Bill.

You surely understand that while I, and others like me, believe that the future that you outline for Iraq is possible, it is hardly probable. There are many, many factors working against the Iraqi people right now, including other Iraqi people, but our biggest problem is that we simply don't trust the leadership that led us into this mess.

We can all agree that no matter what the validity of the Iraq war was or was not, the handling of the post-war/occupation has not been top notch. Depending on who you ask, we either have too many or not enough troops there; there seem to be major problems with money (tens of billions missing or wasted); Prisoner abuses and scandals such as Abu Ghraib just make things worse. We can't even trust our own Iraqi Shiite allies, who are so sectarian that they are pretty much as bad as the Sunnis who are supposed to be the bad guys.

We seem to have problems making headway in the war.

Which is to be expected, really; fighting insurgents is like punching a pillow. Doesn't get you anywhere unless you are willing to break the whole pillow open, and we would hope for the Iraqi civilians' sake that it doesn't come to this.

We are dismayed, becuase noone seems to have been focused on catching OBL and stopping Al Qaeda for a long time now.

We are dismayed, because the time/money/lives/effort we've spent in Iraq could have been spent elsewhere. We aren't a single step closer to defeating Al Qaeda then we were three years ago. That's the goal, right? Not to make Democracies, but to defeat Al Qaeda and stop terrorism.

We are dismayed, becuase so many on the Right side of the political fence appear to be living in a world where dead Iraqi civilians just don't matter at all. Their deaths are neccessary. We find this to be an abhorrent worldview, and while we understand the neccessities and horrors that war brings around, it continually reminds us that we were essentially lied into this war; we are not so naive to believe that smoke doesn't indicate fire.

...

I can't speak for others, but I believe - based upon many years of study of the region, and what has been going on - that Iraq will never look like Japan and Germany. Never. The situations are completely different.

Iraq has no downtime. They can't relax and rebuild. They didn't have their armies crushed in a titanic battle with forces they opposed. They are surrounded by enemies; every one of their sects has problems with one of the neighbors of Iraq or another. Also, at no point was the 'national will' of Iraq broken in the way that it was in Japan and Germany.

I am forcibly reminded of military training: break down, build up. We broke Japan and Germany down, built them back up in our image, and turned them into allies. We turned their highly industrialized and united society to a different course, one more to our liking. And why not? We did defeat the aggressors. Now, we are the aggressors.

Iraq is different; instead of being united in defeat, they are splintered into factions. Instead of working together to rebuild, they work against each other. This is diametrically opposed to post-war experiences we had in other countries.

Iraq is not a country with a long and proud history to draw back upon. As Set pointed out, they merely exist as a country at all because the last group of Anglos messed around in the area to lump people who didn't belong, or wish, to be part of the same nation, together. Harsh rulers kept the whole thing in check for a long time.

Now, unless we are willing to be the harsh ruler, things are going to balance themselves out naturally.

...

Maybe you understand why I/We get so upset on the issue. The bet that Iraq will stabilize anytime soon is a 100/1 shot. Those who initiated the war clearly didn't know what they were getting into, and they have bet America's time, money, and youth on fighting a war they didn't understand. Hardly something to cheer about. We will be paying for this one for a long time, one way or the other; and I don't subscibe to a single one of the 'scare' scenarios about how we would all be dead if we hadn't attacked Iraq, because of some tenuous link to terrorism. F*ck that brand of fearmongering.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 03:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thanks for the balanced response, O'Bill.
Back atcha.

My hope that you are wrong is much stronger than my belief of same... but it's pretty strong too. We'll see.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 03:50 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1741942,00.html


Quote:
'If you start looking at them as humans, then how are you gonna kill them?'

They are a publicity nightmare for the US military: an ever-growing number of veterans of the Iraq conflict who are campaigning against the war. To mark the third anniversary of the invasion this month, a group of them marched on Katrina-ravaged New Orleans. Inigo Gilmore and Teresa Smith joined them

Wednesday March 29, 2006
The Guardian


At a press conference in a cavernous Alabama warehouse, banners and posters are rolled out: "Abandon Iraq, not the Gulf coast!" A tall, white soldier steps forward in desert fatigues. "I was in Iraq when Katrina happened and I watched US citizens being washed ashore in New Orleans," he says. "War is oppression: we could be setting up hospitals right here. America is war-addicted. America is neglecting its poor."
A black reporter from a Fox TV news affiliate, visibly stunned, whispers: "Wow! That guy's pretty opinionated." Clearly such talk, even three years after the Iraq invasion, is still rare. This, after all, is the Deep South and this soldier less than a year ago was proudly serving his nation in Iraq.

The soldier was engaged in no ordinary protest. Over five days earlier this month, around 200 veterans, military families and survivors of hurricane Katrina walked 130 miles from Mobile, Alabama, to New Orleans to mark the third anniversary of the Iraq war. At its vanguard, Iraq Veterans Against the War, a group formed less than two years ago, whose very name has aroused intense hostility at the highest levels of the US military.

Mobile is a grand old southern naval town, clinging to the Gulf Coast. The stars and stripes flutter from almost every balcony as the soldiers parade through the town, surprising onlookers. As they begin their soon-to-be-familiar chants - "Bush lied, many died!" - some shout "traitor", or hurl less polite terms of abuse. Elsewhere, a black man salutes as a blonde, middle-aged woman, emerging from a supermarket car park, cries out, "Take it all the way to the White House!" and offers the peace sign.

Michael Blake is at the front of the march. The 22-year-old from New York state is not quite sure how he ended up in the military; the child of "a feminist mom and hippy dad", he says he signed up thinking that he would have an adventure, never imagining that he would find himself in Iraq. He served from April 2003 to March 2004, some of that time as a Humvee driver. Deeply disturbed by his experience in Iraq, he filed for conscientious objector status and has been campaigning against the war ever since.

He claims that US soldiers such as him were told little about Iraq, Iraqis or Islam before serving there; other than a book of Arabic phrases, "the message was always: 'Islam is evil' and 'They hate us.' Most of the guys I was with believed it."

Blake says that the turning point for him came one day when his unit spent eight hours guarding a group of Iraqi women and children whose men were being questioned. He recalls: "The men were taken away and the women were screaming and crying, and I just remember thinking: this was exactly what Saddam used to do - and now we're doing it."

Becoming a peace activist, he says, has been a "cleansing" experience. "I'll never be normal again. I'll always have a sense of guilt." He tells us that he witnessed civilian Iraqis being killed indiscriminately. It would not be the most startling admission by the soldiers on the march.

"When IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devices] would go off by the side of the road, the instructions were - or the practice was - to basically shoot up the landscape, anything that moved. And that kind of thing would happen a lot." So innocent people were killed? "It happened, yes." (He says he did not carry out any such killings himself.)

Blake, an activist with IVAW for the past 12 months, is angry that American people seem so untouched by the war, by the grim abuses committed by American soldiers. "The American media doesn't cover it and they don't care. The American people aren't seeing the real war - what's really happening there."

We are in a Mexican diner in Mississippi when Alan Shackleton, a quiet 24-year-old from Iowa, stuns the table into silence with a story of his own. He details how he and his comrades in Iraq suffered multiple casualties, including a close friend who died of his injuries. Then he pauses for a moment, swallows hard and says: "And I ran over a little kid and killed him ... and that's about it." He has been suffering from severe insomnia, but later he tells us that he has only been able to see a counsellor once every six weeks and has been prescribed sleeping pills.

"We are very, very sorry for what we did to the Iraqi people," he says the next day, holding a handwritten poster declaring: "Thou shall not kill."

As we get closer to New Orleans, the coastline becomes increasingly ravaged. Joe Hatcher, always sporting a keffiyeh and punk chains, reflects on his own time in the military and the hostility he has met from pro-war activists at home in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a town with five army bases where he campaigns against the war at town hall forums. He says: "There's this old guy, George, an ex-colonel. He shows up and talks **** on everybody for being anti-war because 'it's ruining the morale of the soldier and encouraging the enemy'.

"I scraped dead bodies off the pavements with a shovel and threw them in trash bags and left them there on the side of the road. And I really don't think the anti-war movement is what is infuriating people."

When we reach Biloxi, Mississippi, the police say that there is no permit for the march and everyone will have to walk on the pavement. This is tricky because Katrina has left this coastal road looking like a bomb site.

Jody Casey left the army five days ago and came straight to join the vets. The 29-year-old is no pacifist; he still firmly backs the military but says that he is speaking out in the hope of correcting many of the mistakes being made. He served as a scout sniper for a year until last February, based, like Blake, in the Sunni triangle.

He clearly feels a little ill at ease with some of the protesters' rhetoric, but eventually agrees to talk to us. He says that the turning point for him came after he returned from Iraq and watched videos that he and other soldiers in his unit shot while out on raids, including hour after hour of Iraqi soldiers beating up Iraqi civilians. While reviewing them back home he decided "it was not right".

What upset him the most about Iraq? "The total disregard for human life," he says, matter of factly. "I mean, you do what you do at the time because you feel like you need to. But then to watch it get kind of covered up, shoved under a rug ... 'Oh, that did not happen'."

What kind of abuses did he witness? "Well, I mean, I have seen innocent people being killed. IEDs go off and [you] just zap any farmer that is close to you. You know, those people were out there trying to make a living, but on the other hand, you get hit by four or five of those IEDs and you get pretty tired of that, too."

Casey told us how, from the top down, there was little regard for the Iraqis, who were routinely called "hajjis", the Iraq equivalent of "gook". "They basically jam into your head: 'This is hajji! This is hajji!' You totally take the human being out of it and make them into a video game."

It was a way of dehumanising the Iraqis? "I mean, yeah - if you start looking at them as humans, and stuff like that, then how are you going to kill them?"

He says that soldiers who served in his area before his unit's arrival recommended them to keep spades on their vehicles so that if they killed innocent Iraqis, they could throw a spade off them to give the appearance that the dead Iraqi was digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

Casey says he didn't participate in any such killings himself, but claims the pervasive atmosphere was that "you could basically kill whoever you wanted - it was that easy. You did not even have to get off and dig a hole or anything. All you had to do was have some kind of picture. You're driving down the road at three in the morning. There's a guy on the side of the road, you shoot him ... you throw a shovel off."

The IVAW, says Hatcher, "is becoming our religion, our fight - as in any religion we've confessed our wrongs, and now it's time to atone."

Just outside New Orleans, the sudden appearance of a reporter from al-Jazeera's Washington office electrifies the former soldiers. It is a chance for the vets to turn confessional and the reporter is deluged with young former soldiers keen to be interviewed. "We want the Iraqi people to know that we stand with them," says Blake, "and that we're sorry, so sorry. That's why it was so important for us to appear on al-Jazeera."

A number of Vietnam veterans also on the march are a welcome presence. For all the attempts to deny a link between the two conflicts, for both sets of veterans the parallels are persuasive. Thomas Brinson survived the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968. "Iraq is just Arabic for Vietnam, like the poster says - the same horror, the same tears," he says.

Sitting on a riverbed outside New Orleans, Blake turns reflective. "I met an Iraqi at one of the public meetings I was talking at recently. He came up to me and told me he was originally from the town where I had been stationed. And I just went up to this complete stranger and hugged him and I said, 'I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.' And you know what? He told me it was OK. And it was beautiful ..." He starts to cry. "That was redemption".

ยท Inigo Gilmore and Teresa Smith's film on the March to New Orleans is on Newsnight tonight at 10.30pm on BBC2.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 03:57 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Not so Set. The idea that a majority of Shi'ites wouldn't dominate an Iraqi democracy is what I agreed was silly... not your comment. Your enormous Strawman about other countries adjusting the U.S. by force does qualify as quite silly however, and beyond pointing that out, isn't worth addressing. Tone down the hyperbole about 20 clicks if you want me to respond.


I don't give a rat's ass if you respond. If you had meant what you now claim you meant, you sure as Hell expressed it in an inept manner. Precisely what was all that crap about a white majority here intended to convey? While acknowledging that what you wrote may have intended to agree with me, the manner in which you expressed yourself, espcially with remarks about "vested interests" and a white majority here certainly provided sufficient verbal foliage to obscure your intent. You brought up a vague scenario about whom we might elect and how the world might react, so don't claim i erected any strawman. I was simply attempting to respond to an obscure and confused post, the intent of which was not at all clear.

On the topic of slant, and childish remarks, once again, Pot, meet Kettle.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 04:15 pm
What if after our elections a person is elected on one side and the other sides say that they don't approve of the person they elected so they should pick someone else. We wouldn't stand for it, why should the Shiite's have to listen to the kurds and Sunni's and President Bush when they elect who they want as PM since their side won enough votes to be able pick their PM?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 04:43 pm
revel, Precisely the case; similar to the Palestinians that chose Hamas to lead them. Bush may not like it or approve of it, but that's how "democracy" works in the Middle East.

Wasn't the last justification used to attack Iraq was to bring democracy there? He got his wish.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 04:45 pm
That Hamas embroglio still cracks me up . . . you know those boys on Pennsylvania Avenue peed their pants . . .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 05:21 pm
Here's the kicker of all this "democratically elected officials" of Palestine:

"Fatah suffered a stunning defeat in the Jan. 25 Palestinian legislative elections, in part because of the success men like Aweidat have had in luring voters to Hamas. How Aweidat lured those voters is instructive: He attracted supporters not through the web of social services typically cited as the source of Hamas's appeal, or with talk of the extravagances of Fatah, but through religion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 05:22 pm
Sound familiar?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 06:10 pm
Get a hold of yourself Setanta. Only in Setantaland does "I think the world would have something to say about it" equate to the world crossing oceans and trying militarily to force a regime change. Laughing You don't think that is a Strawman? LaughingLaughingLaughing Your incessant hyperbole is so far over the top that rational discussion with you is impossible.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 07:05 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Honestly, ican, you didn't read what you highlighted, correct?


Quote:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.


Do we interpret it differently?

Quote:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ...

1. America is a member of the UN.
2. Al-Qaeda declared war on America in 1996 and 1998.
3. Then al-Qaeda trained al-Qaeda attackers to highjack airliners.
4. Then these Al-Qaeda attackers learned in American flight schools how to fly airplanes.
5. Then these Al-Qaeda attackers armed themselves with boxcutters.
6. Then these al-Qaeda attackers on 9/11/2001 boarded four American airliners.
7. Then these al-Qaeda attackers attacked the crew and passengers on these four American airliners.
8. Then these al-Qaeda attackers highjacked these four American airliners.
9. Then these al-Qaeda attackers were armed with these four American airliners.
10. Then these al-Qaeda attackers murdered almost 3,000 American civilians with these airliners.
11. Then America in self-defense decided to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
12. Then America declared war on al-Qaeda and a country that harbored them.
13. Then America invaded that country 10/20/2001.
14. Then America removed the government of that country and attacked the al-Qaeda harbored there.
15. Then America declared war on al-Qaeda and a second country that harbored them.
16. Then America invaded that country 3/20/2003.
17. Then America removed the government of that country and attacked the al-Qaeda harbored there.

Quote:
... until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

18. The UN debated what measures were "necessary to maintain international peace and security."
19. Then the UN decided ... ???
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 07:42 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Thanks for the balanced response, O'Bill.

You surely understand that while I, and others like me, believe that the future that you outline for Iraq is possible, it is hardly probable. There are many, many factors working against the Iraqi people right now, including other Iraqi people, but our biggest problem is that we simply don't trust the leadership that led us into this mess.
...
Maybe you understand why I/We get so upset on the issue. The bet that Iraq will stabilize anytime soon is a 100/1 shot. Those who initiated the war clearly didn't know what they were getting into, and they have bet America's time, money, and youth on fighting a war they didn't understand. Hardly something to cheer about. We will be paying for this one for a long time, one way or the other; and I don't subscibe to a single one of the 'scare' scenarios about how we would all be dead if we hadn't attacked Iraq, because of some tenuous link to terrorism. F*ck that brand of fearmongering. Cycloptichorn

Thank you for your rational post, Cyclo.

While I disagree with your probability estimates, they are not unreasonable in the face of current conditions.

I also disagree with your estimate of the nature of the link between Iraq and terrorism at the time of our invasion, and the threat to America that link would have too soon become had we not invaded Iraq. It is not "fearmongering." It is a rational projection of a parallel with what ensued in Afghanistan after terrorism got re-established in Afghanistan. Since neither of us can estimate with certainty consequences of actions not taken, I think we both should merely state our opinions about the validity or non-validity of such a parallel, and agree to disagree.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 09:50 pm
March 30, 2006
Beleaguered Premier Warns U.S. to Stop Interfering in Iraq's Politics Senior Shiite politicians said Tuesday that the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, had weighed in over the weekend, telling the leader of the Shiite bloc that President Bush did not want Mr. Jaafari as prime minister. That was the first time the Americans had openly expressed a preference for the post, the politicians said, and it showed the Bush administration's acute impatience with the political logjam.

Relations between Shiite leaders and the Americans have been fraying for months and reached a crisis point after a bloody assault on a Shiite mosque compound Sunday night by American and Iraqi forces.
Mr. Jaafari said in the interview that Ambassador Khalilzad had visited him on Wednesday morning but did not indicate that he should abandon his job.

American reactions to the political process can be seen as either supporting or interfering in Iraqi decisions, said Mr. Jaafari, the leader of the Islamic Dawa Party and a former exile. "When it takes the form of interference, it makes the Iraqi people worried," he said. "For that reason, the Iraqi people want to ensure that these reactions stay in a positive frame and do not cross over into interference that damages the results of the democratic process."

According to the Constitution, the largest bloc in Parliament, in this case the religious Shiites, has the right to nominate a prime minister. Mr. Jaafari won that nomination in a secret ballot last month among the blocs' 130 Shiite members of Parliament. But his victory was a narrow one: he won by only one vote after getting the support of Mr. Sadr, who controls 32 seats.

That alliance has raised concern among the Americans that Mr. Jaafari will do little to rein in Mr. Sadr, who led two fierce rebellions against the American military in 2004. Mr. Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, rampaged in Baghdad after the Feb. 22 bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra and after a series of car bomb explosions on March 12 in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. The violence left hundreds dead and Sunni mosques burnt to the ground.

After the secret ballot last month, Sadr politicians said Mr. Jaafari had agreed to meet all their demands in exchange for their votes. Mr. Sadr has been pushing for control of service ministries like health, transportation and electricity.

Mr. Jaafari did not say in the interview what deals he had made, but he insisted that engagement with the cleric's movement was needed for the stability of Iraq. He said he had disagreed with L. Paul Bremer III, the former American proconsul, when Mr. Bremer barred Mr. Sadr and some Sunni Arab groups from the Iraqi Governing Council in 2003.

"The delay in getting them to join led to the situation of them becoming violent elements," he said.

"I look at them as part of Iraq's de facto reality, whether some of the individual people are negative or positive," he said.

Mr. Jaafari used similar language when laying out his policy toward militias: that inclusion rather than isolation was the proper strategy.

The Iraqi government will try "to meld them, take them, take their names and make them join the army and police forces."

"And they will respect the army or police rather than the militias."

Recruiting militia members into the Iraqi security forces has not been a problem under the Jaafari government. The issue has been getting those fighters to act as impartial defenders of the state rather than as political partisans. The police forces are stocked with members of the Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization, an Iranian-trained militia, who still exhibit obvious loyalties to their political party leaders.

Police officers have performed poorly when ordered to contain militia violence, and they even cruise around in some cities with images of Mr. Sadr or other religious politicians on their squad cars.

There is growing evidence of uniformed death squads operating out of the Shiite-run Interior Ministry, and Ambassador Khalilzad has been lobbying the Iraqis to place more neutral figures in charge of the Interior and Defense Ministries in the next government. That has caused friction with Shiite leaders, and some have even accused the ambassador of implicitly backing the Sunni Arab-led insurgency.

But Mr. Jaafari said he supported the Americans' goal.

"We insist that the ministers in the next cabinet, especially the ministers of defense and the interior, shouldn't be connected to any militias, and they should be nonsectarian," he said. "They should be experienced in security work. They should keep the institutions as security institutions, not as political institutions. They should work for the central government."

In the first two years of the war, Mr. Jaafari emerged as one of the most popular politicians in Iraq, especially compared with other exiles like Ahmad Chalabi, the former Pentagon favorite. A doctor by training and well-versed in the Koran, Mr. Jaafari comes from a prominent family in Karbala, the Shiite holy city. But since taking power last spring, Mr. Jaafari has come under widespread criticism for failing to stamp out the insurgency and promoting hard-line pro-Shiite policies.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 03:26:43