Too true, Geligesti.
According to this article, the change of heart from Jaafari came after meetings from the UN envoy and key Shiite religious leaders.
Iraq Shia alliance to vote on PM
Quote:The UIA is expected to announce a leader by Saturday afternoon when the parliament is due to hold a session, which was postponed from Thursday.
Saturday's session, at which MPs are due to choose a speaker, likely to be drawn from the Sunni Arab parliamentary contingent, will be only its second since the general election in December.
Wrangling between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish parties over who should be prime minister has prevented the formation of a government.
As recently as Wednesday, Mr Jaafari was refusing to step aside, insisting his nomination was the democratic choice of the Iraqi people.
A meeting with United Nations envoy Ashraf Qazi and Shia Muslim religious leaders were key factors in Mr Jaafari's change of heart, correspondents quote MPs as saying.
Despite the impasse, hopes are rising for a breakthrough as violence continues across the country, the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says.
The One Certainty About Iraq: Spiraling Costs for Americans
The One Certainty About Iraq: Spiraling Costs for Americans
By Keith Garvin
ABC News
Thursday 20 April 2006
Poor planning, need for new equipment could push war costs to $1 trillion.
There are many uncertainties about the progress made by coalition forces and the future prospects for stability and democracy in Iraq, but there is at least one indisputable fact: The Bush administration vastly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war.
Not only in human lives, but in monetary terms as well, the costs of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq far exceed the administration's initial projection of a $50 billion tab. While the number of American casualties in Iraq has declined this year, the amount of money spent to fight the war and rebuild the country has spiralled upward.
The price is expected to almost double after lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.
Poor Planning Could Push War Costs to $1 Trillion
ABC analyst Tony Cordesman, who also holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the exorbitant costs come down to poor planning.
"When the administration submitted its original budget for the Iraq war, it didn't provide money for continuing the war this year or any other. We could end up spending up to $1 trillion in supplemental budgets for this war."
According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the United States spent $48 billion for Iraq in 2003, $59 billion in 2004, and $81 billion in 2005. The center predicts the figure will balloon to $94 billion for 2006. That equates to a $1,205 bill for each of America's 78 million families, on top of taxes they already pay.
Bill Will Linger Long After Withdrawal
Analysts say the increases can be blamed on the rising cost of maintaining military equipment and developing new equipment. As the cost of military equipment escalates, the cost of the war escalates. In fact, developing state-of-the-art weapons to defeat insurgents and their roadside bombs will hit the wallets of American taxpayers for years to come.
"The Department of Defense has increased its investment in new equipment from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion in the coming years," Cordesman said.
Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker recently warned lawmakers that the cost of upkeep and replacement of military equipment would continue even after U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq. To fully reequip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends will cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces will start withdrawing from Iraq in July, and be completely out of the country by the end of 2008.
Aren't the Kurds supposed to get someone of theirs into this leadership soup?
I saw something where the Iraq spending is now 10 Billion per month. I bet the Republicans are sure happy that's not being spent on our own poor and needy! That would be criminal if we spent it on us ... we need to deliver Democracy to Iraq!! We need to make sure Halliburton and the rest of Cheney's "investors" are getting a good return!!
Anon
With proven Haliburton over-charges on most things, we can be assured that the cost will continue to escalate in Iraq.
"Conservatism" no longer has any meaning for the Conservatives in the US of A.
The only thing conservative is their pea-brain.
revel, That'd be the nomination impasse, but not the insurgency or sectarian violence that's getting worse for the Iraqi people.
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH of American foreign policy is
that the last five years have left us with a series of choices
-- and all of them are bad. The United States can't keep
troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can't
withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue.
The United States can't keep prisoners at Guantánamo
Bay ... indefinitely, because of international and domestic
challenges. But it can't hastily release them, since many
were and more have become terrorists. And it can't even
bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have
already occurred. ... The central flaw of American foreign
policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope,
wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and
practicality.
-- James Fallows, in the latest issue of Atlantic Monthly
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran
The central flaw in American foreign policy up to and including 9/11 was a failure to timely and properly assess the degree of threat to the security of Americans presented by terrorist malignancy.
Quote:UN CHARTER 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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
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 first country (i.e., Afghanistan) that harbored them.
13. Then America invaded that country 10/20/2001.
14. Then America replaced the government of that country and attacked the al-Qaeda harbored there.
15. Then America began to democratize that government.
16. Then America declared war on al-Qaeda and a second country (i.e., Iraq) that harbored them.
17. Then America invaded that country 3/20/2003.
18. Then America replaced the government of that country and attacked the al-Qaeda harbored there.
19. Then America began to democratize that government.
Quote: ... until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
20. The UN debated what measures were "necessary to maintain international peace and security."
21. Then the UN decided ... ???
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote:revel, That'd be the nomination impasse, but not the insurgency or sectarian violence that's getting worse for the Iraqi people.
I think by this point all sides were locked in and were desperately looking for a way out of this impass. Jawad al-Maliki is actually no different Jaafari in terms of idealogies and stuff, he also has a history of making harsh political statements. This is what a Sunni member had to say about Maliki.
Quote:The name of Mr Maliki, a close ally of Mr Jaafari and a member of his Dawa party, has circulated for several weeks as a possible replacement. Yesterday Sunni and Kurdish leaders welcomed him as a potential end to the stalemate.
"We have no objection to Jawad al-Maliki," said Iyad al-Samarrai, of the Sunni-led Iraqi Islamic party. "Although there is not much difference [from Mr Jaafari] from the ideological point of view, we have a feeling he is more practical, more willing to solve problems. We don't want to complicate the process [further]. It's better to move on.''
source
I think the key phrase there is, "It's better to move on."
Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Save
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: April 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 22 ?- The revolt by retired generals who publicly criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has opened an extraordinary debate among younger officers, in military academies, in the armed services' staff colleges and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq.
Junior and midlevel officers are discussing whether the war plans for Iraq reflected unvarnished military advice, whether the retired generals should have spoken out, whether active-duty generals will feel free to state their views in private sessions with the civilian leaders and, most divisive of all, whether Mr. Rumsfeld should resign.
In recent weeks, military correspondents of The Times discussed those issues with dozens of younger officers and cadets in classrooms and with combat units in the field, as well as in informal conversations at the Pentagon and in e-mail exchanges and telephone calls.
To protect their careers, the officers were granted anonymity so they could speak frankly about the debates they have had and have heard. The stances that emerged are anything but uniform, although all seem colored by deep concern over the quality of civil-military relations, and the way ahead in Iraq.
The discussions often flare with anger, particularly among many midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and face the prospect of additional tours of duty.
"This is about the moral bankruptcy of general officers who lived through the Vietnam era yet refused to advise our civilian leadership properly," said one Army major in the Special Forces who has served two combat tours. "I can only hope that my generation does better someday."
An Army major who is an intelligence specialist said: "The history I will take away from this is that the current crop of generals failed to stand up and say, 'We cannot do this mission.' They confused the cultural can-do attitude with their responsibilities as leaders to delay the start of the war until we had an adequate force. I think the backlash against the general officers will be seen in the resignation of officers" who might otherwise have stayed in uniform.
One Army colonel enrolled in a Defense Department university said an informal poll among his classmates indicated that about 25 percent believed that Mr. Rumsfeld should resign, and 75 percent believed that he should remain. But of the second group, two-thirds thought he should acknowledge errors that were made and "show that he is not the intolerant and inflexible person some paint him to be," the colonel said.
Many officers who blame Mr. Rumsfeld are not faulting President Bush ?- in contrast to the situation in the 1960's, when both President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara drew criticism over Vietnam from the officer corps. (Mr. McNamara, like Mr. Rumsfeld, was also resented from the outset for his attempts to reshape the military itself.)
But some are furiously criticizing both, along with the military leadership, like the Army major in the Special Forces. "I believe that a large number of officers hate Rumsfeld as much as I do, and would like to see him go," he said.
"The Army, however, went gently into that good night of Iraq without saying a word," he added, summarizing conversations with other officers. "For that reason, most of us know that we have to share the burden of responsibility for this tragedy. And at the end of the day, it wasn't Rumsfeld who sent us to war, it was the president. Officers know better than anyone else that the buck stops at the top. I think we are too deep into this for Rumsfeld's resignation to mean much.
"But this is all academic. Most officers would acknowledge that we cannot leave Iraq, regardless of their thoughts on the invasion. We destroyed the internal security of that state, so now we have to restore it. Otherwise, we will just return later, when it is even more terrible."
The debates are fueled by the desire to mete out blame for the situation in Iraq, a drawn-out war that has taken many military lives and has no clear end in sight. A midgrade officer who has served two tours in Iraq said a number of his cohorts were angered last month when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that "tactical errors, a thousand of them, I am sure," had been made in Iraq.
"We have not lost a single tactical engagement on the ground in Iraq," the officer said, noting that the definition of tactical missions is specific movements against an enemy target. "The mistakes have all been at the strategic and political levels."
Many officers said a crisis of leadership extended to serious questions about top generals' commitment to sustain a seasoned officer corps that was being deployed on repeated tours to the long-term counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of the government did not appear to be on the same wartime footing.
"We are forced to develop innovative ways to convince, coerce and cajole officers to stay in to support a war effort of national-level importance that is being done without a defensewide, governmentwide or nationwide commitment of resources," said one Army colonel with experience in Iraq.
Another Army major who served in Iraq said a fresh round of debates about the future of the American military had also broken out. Simply put, the question is whether the focus should be, as Mr. Rumsfeld believes, on a lean high-tech force with an eye toward possible opponents like China, or on troop-heavy counterinsurgency missions more suited to hunting terrorists, with spies and boots on the ground.
In general, the Army and Marines support maintaining beefy ground forces, while the Navy and Air Force ?- the beneficiaries of much of the high-tech arsenal ?- favor the leaner approach. And some worry that those arguments have become too fierce.
"I think what has the potential for scarring relations is the two visions of warfare ?- one that envisions near-perfect situational awareness and technology dominance, and the other that sees future war as grubby, dirty and chaotic," the major said. "These visions require vastly different forces. The tension comes when we only have the money to build one of these forces. Who gets the cash?"
Some senior officers said part of their own discussions were about fears for the immediate future, centering on the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld has surrounded himself with senior officers who share his views and are personally invested in his policies.
"If civilian officials feel as if they could be faced with a revolt of sorts, they will select officers who are like-minded," said another Army officer who has served in Iraq. "They will, as a result, get the military advice they want based on whom they appoint."
Kori Schake, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who teaches Army cadets at West Point, said some of the debates revolved around the issues raised in "Dereliction of Duty," a book that analyzes why the Joint Chiefs of Staff seemed unable or unwilling to challenge civilian decisions during the war in Vietnam. Published in 1997, the book was written by Col. H. R. McMaster, who recently returned from a year in Iraq as commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment.
"It's a fundamentally healthy debate," Ms. Schake said. "Junior officers look around at the senior leadership and say, 'Are these people I admire, that I want to be like?' "
These younger officers "are debating the standard of leadership," she said. "Is it good enough to do only what civilian masters tell you to do? Or do you have a responsibility to shape that policy, and what actions should you undertake if you believe they are making mistakes?"
The conflicts some officers express reflect the culture of commander and subordinate that sometimes baffles the civilian world. No class craves strong leadership more than the military.
"I feel conflicted by this debate, and I think a lot of my colleagues are also conflicted," said an Army colonel completing a year at one of the military's advanced schools. He expressed discomfort at the recent public criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld and the Iraq war planning by retired generals, including Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, the former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs, who wrote, in Time magazine, "My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions ?- or bury the results."
But the colonel said his classmates were also aware of how the Rumsfeld Pentagon quashed dissenting views that many argued were proved correct, and prescient, like those of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, a former Army chief of staff. He was shunted aside after telling Congress, before the invasion, that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure and stabilize Iraq.
Others contend that the military's own failings are equally at fault. A field-grade officer now serving in Iraq said he thought it was incorrect for the retired generals to call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. His position, he said, is that "if there is a judgment to be cast, it rests as much upon the shoulders of our senior military leaders."
That officer, like several others interviewed, emphasized that while these issues often occupied officers' minds, the debate had not hobbled the military's ability to function in Iraq. "No impact here that I can see regarding this subject," he said.
Spineless politican advisers discover the law, one invasion too late.
Foreign Office lawyers have formally advised Jack Straw that it would be illegal under international law for Britain to support any US-led military action against Iran.
http://www.sundayherald.com/55316
McT, Our legalites in the US are too chicken to make such demands of Bush - even with all the knowledge that he started the war in Iraq on false justifications. We don't have a prayer if Bush decides to attack Iran; the Yes Generals will follow through as required.
The central flaw in American foreign policy up to and including 9/11 was a failure to timely and properly assess the degree of threat to the security of Americans presented by terrorist malignancy.
Quote:UN CHARTER 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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
President Carter
Quote:List of terrorist incidents
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...
The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered terrorism.
1977
March 9: Three buildings in Washington, DC are seized and over 100 hostages taken. Washington city councilman Marion Barry is shot in the chest during the incident and after a standoff all hostages are released from the District building, B’nai Brith, and the Islamic Center.
April 7: Federal Prosecutor Siegfried Buback and his driver were shot by two Red Army Faction members.
May 23: In the Netherlands, RMS activists kept 105 children and 5 teachers hostage in a school in Smilde.
June 11: In the Netherlands, near Groningen, a passenger train was hijacked by members of the RMS, 55 passengers were kept hostage. In an army attack six hijackers and two passengers were killed.
July 30: Jürgen Ponto, then head of the Dresdner Bank, was shot and killed by the Red Army Faction in a failed kidnapping.
September 5: Hanns Martin Schleyer was kidnapped by the Red Army Faction. He was executed by the Red Army Faction on October 19, 1977.
October 13: Lufthansa flight LH 181 was kidnapped by a group of four Arabs around the leader "Captain Martyr Mahmud".
1978
1978–1995: The Unabomber kills three and injures 29 in a string of anti-technology bombings.
February 13: Hilton bombing: A bomb is detonated outside the CHOGM meeting in Sydney, Australia, killing 2 people. 3 Ananda Marga members are later arrested and jailed for the attack, but later released due to lack of proof.
February 17: The IRA kill 12 people in the La Mon Restaurant Bombing.
March: In the Netherlands members of the RMS movement occupy a provincial office in Assen. 67 persons were held hostage, one official was killed on the spot, another died of injuries a month later.
March 11: Coastal Road massacre: Fatah gunmen killed several tourists and hijack a bus near Haifa; 37 Israelis on the bus are killed.
March 16 – May 9: The Red Brigade kidnap Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro and assassinate him 55 days later.
1979
July 29: Basque ETA members bomb two railway stations in Madrid, killing 7.
August 27: Lord Mountbatten and three others are killed by IRA bomb on board his boat off Mullaghmore. The same day two IRA bombs kill 18 British Soldiers near Warrenpoint. After the explosions a heavy gun battle ensued between the Soldiers and the Bombers firing from their position inside the border with the Republic of Ireland. One civilian was caught in the crossfire and killed.
1980
February 27: Dominican embassy siege: Guerrillas from M-19 take diplomats hostage at the Dominican embassy in Bogotá, Colombia. After 61 days, all are released on April 27.
March 24: Archbishop ?"scar Romero assassinated by death squads in El Salvador.
April 30: Iranian Embassy siege: Iraqi agents take over the Iranian Embassy in London, gaining hostages. After a number of days, one hostage was killed by the Iraqis, and the Special Air Service assaulted the building to rescue the remaining hostages. One hostage died during the assault.
27 July: Members of the Abu Nidal Organisation carried out a grenade attack on an Antwerp synagogue killing a child and wounding twenty others.
August 2: Strage di Bologna: A terrorist bombing at the railway station in Bologna, Italy kills 85 people and wounds more than 200.
October 3: Four congregants were killed and twelve others injured in a bomb attack on the rue Copernic synagogue in Paris, France. Responsibility was claimed by the National European Fascists (FNE), but the police investigation concluded that Palestinian terrorists were involved.
Yea, like invading Iraq stopped any kind of spread of terrorist and violence.
Iraqi Shi'ite, Sunni friendship meal ends in death
Quote:BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Just hours after Iraq's prime minister-designate promised to unite Iraqis on Saturday, three Shi'ite brothers and two Sunni brothers went out to dinner together.
It was an uplifting gathering in a country where sectarian mistrust deepens after every bombing, shooting and kidnapping.
But the harsh reality of Iraq caught up with the group of friends just after they paid the check and left the restaurant.
Gunmen in cars pulled up and shot them dead in plain view of the public, police said. Relatives who washed the bodies for burial said their eyes had been gouged out and hands bound.
Friendships were forgotten the next day as vows of revenge whipped up an already emotional crowd at the funeral for the Shi'ite brothers -- Iyad, Ali and Mohammad Yazan.
There appeared to be no compassion for the Sunni Arab brothers -- Omar and Hakam Khudeir -- even though they were victims of the same hail of bullets.
c.i.
I read that piece this morning. Your red comments certainly caught my eye in my reading of it.
Rummy is a peace time Defense Secretary; he knows nothing about fighting a real war.
One of the main problems Maliki is going to have is either controlling the militias or at least changing people's mind about the nature of the militias. Also it is not only Shiite militia in Iraq but also kurdish militias which are a problem. But according to the Kurd's they don't have militia but a "regulated force."
Quote:BAGHDAD, Iraq // The man selected to lead Iraq continued to send mixed signals on the critical issue of dismantling militias, even as the U.S. ambassador said yesterday that disbanding the groups is the single most significant step in preventing civil war.
Jawad al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim political figure endorsed Saturday as prime minister by Iraq's new parliament, has 30 days to form a Cabinet that meets the elected body's approval. But as Iraqi politicians haggle over influence and jostle for government posts, the problem of militias has emerged as the biggest challenge.
In one of his first speeches after his endorsement, al-Maliki promised to rein in the militias, but said he would do so by adhering to a controversial law that requires making them part of the government's security forces.
"It's a message in two directions," said Hassan Bazzaz, a political analyst in Baghdad. "One to those who are scared of the militias and the other message is to the militia people: 'We will take care of you.'"
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said yesterday that militias and "death squads" are "a serious challenge to stability in Iraq to building a successful country based on rule of law."
But taking guns out of politics remains a challenge in a country where political groups have assembled armed forces to back their agendas.
Al-Maliki's coalition is backed by two Shiite militias, the Iranian-trained Badr Brigades and radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
Even the country's Kurdish president appears unwilling to lay down arms. Jalal Talabani, speaking yesterday to reporters in Erbil, defended the 70,000-strong Kurdish peshmerga militia as a "regulated force."
"It seems like the Kurds always want an exception," said Ezzat Shabander, a secular legislator from former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's electoral slate.
source
Meanwhile prisoners in Iraq are still being abused.
Quote:BAGHDAD -- Last Nov. 13, U.S. soldiers found 173 incarcerated men, some of them emaciated and showing signs of torture, in a secret bunker in an Interior Ministry compound in central Baghdad. The soldiers immediately transferred the men to a separate detention facility to protect them from further abuse, the U.S. military reported.
Since then, there have been at least six joint U.S.-Iraqi inspections of detention centers, most of them run by Iraq's Shiite Muslim-dominated Interior Ministry. Two sources involved with the inspections, one Iraqi official and one U.S. official, said abuse of prisoners was found at all the sites visited through February. U.S. military authorities confirmed that signs of severe abuse were observed at two of the detention centers.
But U.S. troops have not responded by removing all the detainees, as they did in November. Instead, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials, only a handful of the most severely abused detainees at a single site were removed for medical treatment. Prisoners at two other sites were removed to alleviate overcrowding. U.S. and Iraqi authorities left the rest where they were.
source
