Who Lost Iraq?

xingu, Condi "caught" whatever it is W has a long time ago. Haven't you been paying attention? LOL

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

Kessinger was supposed to be one of the "smart" guys. Many of us knew from months ago what he's now agreeing to.

McTag wrote-

Quote:

The question, twice asked now, or three times counting this, is:

What has been the benefit to us, achieved by the invasion of Iraq?

I'm sorry but I hadn't seen it before.

Answering it in any sensible way is impossible. The situation does not lend itself to easy answers which are flippant. A book might be required. Or a few.

We have certainly slowed Iraq down. Doing nothing offered the prospect of many years of Saddam followed by many more years of one or other of his sons and from their actions I think we could make a fair guess at their intentions.

At some point we would have had to do something and the later it was left the more difficult it would become.

There is a case of the lesser of two evils being a benefit as with any surgery.

It seems to me a mistake to posit an argument for doing nothing, or trying something ineffective such as sanctions, while ignoring the possibilities of such a policy and throwing the onus on those who do do something to point to the benefits of what they do.

There are many geo-political considerations involved in the region which most of us know nothing much about and which probably look intractable to those who do know. We elect our leaders and we pay billions for them to gather the best brains in the land to study such matters and I don't see any alternative but to abide by their decisions. If our selection of leaders and their advisers is flawed then we need to seek the source of the flaws but to run policies on the basis of fickle mid-term election results, probably derived from derisory turnouts, will, in my opinion, cause us to arrive at the greater of two evils.

Some might say that there are benefits in terms of military experience, in improved technologies, in employment and in areas which involve a level of cynicism which is unsuitable for this debating arena and the august columns of newspapers tailored to avoid any flutterings in the hearts of the sweet pretty things who have no responsibilities except at election times.

Those opposed to the war have nothing else to do than make their waves and get on TV. Those fighting the war are too busy to make their case.

If we are addicted to oil doesn't continuing to buy the daily fix give power to the supplier.

I think we are in for a long haul and the considerations which led us to here will not change for any new leaders we may elect and although their determination may change from that now those considerations won't.

How do you think we should proceed from here?

November 17, 2006
Locals Accuse U.S. of Massacre in Ramadi
Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily

RAMADI, Nov 17 (IPS) - U.S. military tank fire killed scores of civilians in Ramadi, capital of Al-Anbar province, late Monday night, according to witnesses and doctors. Anger and frustration were evident at the hospitals and during the funerals in the following days.

Iraqi doctors and witnesses at the scene of the attack said U.S. tanks killed 35 civilians when they shelled several homes in the Al-Dhubat area of the city.

Ramadi, located 110 km west of Baghdad, has been beset with sporadic but intense violence between occupation forces and insurgents for several months.

On Tuesday, hundreds of people carried the 35 coffins of the dead to a graveyard in a funeral procession which closely resembled an angry demonstration.

"We heard the bombing and we thought it was the usual fighting between resistance fighters and the Americans, but we soon realised it was bombing by large cannons," 60-year-old Haji Jassim explained to IPS at the burial. "We weren't allowed by the Americans to reach the destroyed houses to try to rescue those who were buried, so certainly many of them bled to death."

Jassim claimed that everyone killed was innocent, that they were not fighters. He said that when he and others attempted to reach the rubble of the destroyed homes, located near mosques whose minaret's loudspeakers had broadcast pleas for help, "There was a big American force that stopped us and told us the usual ugly phrases we hear from them every day."

Jassim, speaking with IPS while several other witnesses listened while nodding their heads, said that ambulances did not appear on the scene for hours because "we realised that the Americans did not allow them to move," and that as a result, "there were people buried under the rubble who were bleeding to death while there was still a chance to rescue them."

Jassim then burst into tears and walked away saying prayers to Allah to bless the souls of the dead.

A doctor at Ramadi's main hospital, Abdullah Salih, told reporters that 35 bodies had been brought in and he also believed that others had not been retrieved since access had been limited by ongoing U.S. military operations.

Another doctor, Kamal al-Ani, said that in addition to the dead, another 17 wounded had been brought into the hospital.

The scene at the hospital was tragic as doctors confirmed the reason of death for many as severe bleeding that had gone on for several hours. Most of the doctors were unwilling to discuss too many details for fear of U.S. military reprisals.

"You can notice the number of dead is at least twice as high as the number of wounded," one of the doctors, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. A local Iraqi policeman who identified himself as Khalif Obeidi told IPS that tanks had destroyed several houses in the area during the U.S. raid, killing more than 30 civilians.

"We know that those killed were innocent," said Obeidi, "although there have been attacks on the Americans from near that area in the past."

Residents of the city and relatives of the dead who were at the funeral were furious.

"There is no other way for the Sunnis than to fight," Ali Khudher, a 25-year-old carpenter who lost a relative in the attack told IPS. "It is a religious war and no one can deny that now."

Others who attended the mass funeral chanted anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Iranian and even slogans against the Islamic Party which is now part of the Iraqi government.

Tempers run high in Ramadi also because the city has often been the scene of large-scale U.S. military operations and their inherent forms of collective punishment.

Last June, thousands of residents were forced from their homes due to military operations, according to Maurizio Mascia, programme manager for the Italian Consortium of Solidarity (ICS), a non-governmental group based in Amman, Jordan that provides relief to refugees in Iraq.

At that time, Mascia told IPS, "The Americans, instead of attacking the city all at once like they've done in their previous operations in cities like Fallujah and Al-Qa'im, are using helicopters and ground troops to attack one district at a time in Ramadi."

Mirroring a complaint heard often from residents of Ramadi, Mascia said, "The main dangers for the population are the MNF (multi-national force) at the checkpoints and the snipers: both usually shoot at any movement that they consider dangerous -- causing many victims among civilians."

In a phone conversation with IPS, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad said he had no specific details of the incident and that "the U.S. military has been conducting ongoing patrols and security details in Al-Anbar for months now. Our efforts are always to attack the terrorists and protect the civilian population."

Note to xingu... could you please provide links to your source materials when you paste them in.

This is Spendi's answer, and a very baffling and poor answer it is.

McTag wrote-

Quote:

This is Spendi's answer, and a very baffling and poor answer it is.

I don't know how you judge it poor if it is baffling. In order not to be poor is it necessary for it to not baffle or to not disagree with you.

Al-Qaida 'planted information to encourage US invasion'

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday November 17, 2006

Guardian

A senior al-Qaida operative deliberately planted information to encourage the US to invade Iraq, a double agent who infiltrated the network and spied for western intelligence agencies claimed last night.

The claim was made by Omar Nasiri, a pseudonym for a Moroccan who says he spent seven years working for European security and intelligence agencies, including MI5. He said Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who ran training camps in Afghanistan, told his US interrogators that al-Qaida had been training Iraqis.
Libi was captured in November 2001 and taken to Egypt where he was allegedly tortured. Asked on BBC2's Newsnight whether Libi or other jihadists would have told the truth if they were tortured, Nasiri replies: "Never".

Asked whether he thought Libi had deliberately planted information to get the US to fight Iraq, Nasiri said: "Exactly".

Nasiri said Libi "needed the conflict in Iraq because months before I heard him telling us when a question was asked in the mosque after the prayer in the evening, where is the best country to fight the jihad?" Libi said Iraq was chosen because it was the "weakest" Muslim country.

It is known that under interrogation, Libi misled Washington. His claims were seized on by George Bush, vice-president, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell, secretary of state, in his address to the security council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

Though he did not name Libi, Mr Powell said "a senior terrorist operative" who "was responsible for one of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan" had told US agencies that Saddam Hussein had offered to train al-Qaida in the use of "chemical or biological weapons".

What is new, if Nasiri is to be believed, is that the leading al-Qaida operative wanted to overthrow Saddam and use Iraq as a jihadist base. Nasiri also says that part of al-Qaida training was to withstand interrogation and provide false information.

Nasiri said last night he was later sent to London by his French handlers to infiltrate Finsbury Park mosque and spy on its imam, Abu Hamza, as well as another radical cleric, Abu Qatada.

He said MI5 and French intelligence were watching the two clerics in London from as far back as 1997. He said he told them that Abu Hamza was carrying out combat training and how he listened into conversations relaying messages between Abu Qatada and the training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"At the time we didn't think that the growing threat from al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden was sufficient to put more resources on it," Bob Milton, a Metropolitan police special branch officer, told Newsnight. "We were monitoring what he was doing, certainly working with the US and European colleagues to do that. But at that time we were still unsure what the threat would be," he said.

Abu Hamza was charged in 2003 and convicted this year for incitement to murder and race hate crimes.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006

Like almost all strategies floating around Washington at the moment, this is but another way to try to hang on to some truncated but permanent imperial presence at the heart of the oil lands of the planet -- and as such it is doomed to fail.

blatham wrote:

Note to xingu... could you please provide links to your source materials when you paste them in.

Which article in particular were you interested in knowing the link to? Normally I paste the entire article so the link can't provide you any additional information.

xingu wrote:

blatham wrote:

Note to xingu... could you please provide links to your source materials when you paste them in.

Which article in particular were you interested in knowing the link to? Normally I paste the entire article so the link can't provide you any additional information.

Yes it can. In nearly every case.

blatham wrote:

Note to xingu... could you please provide links to your source materials when you paste them in.

Which article in particular were you interested in knowing the link to? Normally I paste the entire article so the link can't provide you any additional information.

xingu wrote:

blatham wrote:

Note to xingu... could you please provide links to your source materials when you paste them in.

Which article in particular were you interested in knowing the link to? Normally I paste the entire article so the link can't provide you any additional information.

xingu

This is an intellectual and scholarly protocol, and it's a good one. Sources need to be made as accessible as possible so that readers can verify quotes and make judgements as to the veracity and objectivity of sources.