Iraq - 2007 and

Agreed. Predictions:

- We won't leave, because we are too proud. We will be booted from Iraq by a public who can't agree on anything other than their hatred for the US.

- The 'surge' of troops won't make a dent in the level of violence, short-run or long run.

- any attempt to 'partition' the country will end in regional war.

- within five years, you will be looking at an Islaamic Iraq hostile to the interests of the US. Bank on it.

I feel that I make these predicitions from a position of relative authority, as the past few years have bourne out my initial revulsion to the concept of invading Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, I think you're close to being on "target" concerning Iraq.

Cycloptichorn,
"The 'surge' of troops won't make a dent in the level of violence, short-run or long run." Hope you're right on that. I think the purpose of the surge is to escalate the violence. But I hope you're right.

Key Shiite cleric opposes Iraq national unity plan
POSTED: 1613 GMT (0013 HKT), December 23, 2006

The move jeopardized hopes that such a show of political unity could help stem the country's deadly violence.

Members of the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition that dominates parliament, met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf after traveling to the holy city over the past few days. Al-Sistani holds no political post and rarely emerges from his home and adjacent office, but he has strong influence over Shiite politics.

Some members of the Shiite alliance have sought a coalition that would include Kurds and Sunnis and sideline Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric whose militia is blamed for much of Iraq's sectarian violence. Lawmakers who attended the meeting with al-Sistani said the cleric opposed any move that would divide Shiites.

"There are obstacles in the face of forming this coalition, because al-Sistani does not support it. So we will work to strengthen the (Shiite) alliance," said Hassan al-Sunnaid, of the Dawa Party of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Ali al-Adeeb, also a Dawa Party member, said al-Sistani "does not support such blocs because they will break Shiite unity."

An official close to al-Sistani, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the cleric "will not bless nor support any new bloc or front. He only supports the unity of the Shiites."

Such a development could frustrate U.S.-backed efforts to persuade Iraq's political leaders to set aside sectarian interests and work together for the sake of national unity. Without progress in Iraqi politics, some observers say, the security situation in the country is likely to remain tenuous.

Al-Maliki, the Shiite prime minister, had relied heavily on the support of al-Sadr, whose 30 loyalists in the 275-seat parliament and six ministers in the 38-member Cabinet boycotted politics after al-Maliki met Bush in Jordan recently.

Al-Sadr's walkout revealed the depth of division within the 130-seat Shiite bloc in parliament, where some lawmakers who are viewed as moderate have grown weary of the radical cleric's confrontational tactics. Al-Sistani is also believed to be uncomfortable with the younger al-Sadr, a firebrand whose fighters waged battles against American troops that left parts of Najaf in ruins.

After meeting al-Sistani, the Shiite lawmakers visited al-Sadr. The cleric has agreed to allow his supporters to rejoin the government, officials close to him have said. Their walkout had prevented the government from passing laws, creating a political deadlock alongside a deteriorating security environment.

"There is a great hope that Muqtada will return today to the alliance," said Khaled al-Attiya, an independent who is parliament's deputy speaker, said before the meeting. However, the meeting ended with one Dawa party participant saying only that it was "constructive."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who spent three days in Iraq meeting with military and political leaders, was meeting Saturday with President Bush to offer advice on transforming U.S. policy in Iraq. (Full story)

Bush is considering whether to quickly send thousands of additional U.S. troops to the country to control the violence. There are 140,000 American troops in Iraq. (Watch Bush discuss the need for a bigger military )

Before leaving Baghdad, Gates declined to say whether he plans to recommend a short-term increase in U.S. troop levels, but said he believes there is "a broad strategic agreement between the Iraqi military and Iraqi government and our military."
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/23/iraq.politics.ap/

Gates didn't have to say he would recommend a surge in our troops. He's a puppet for Bush - while Bush is a puppet for Cheney. A peppeteer playing with a puppet that plays another puppet. Something new in political lexicon; puppet of a puppet.

when iread the title of this topic i got this sudden image of GW dressed up like buzz lightyear (toy story), and shouting buzz's famous slogan

"to infinity and beyond"

that seems to be their strategy to date anyway

Troop "Surge" Plan for Iraq Meets Growing Opposition in US
Agency France-Presse

Monday 25 December 2006

Opposition to a proposal to send additional American troops to Iraq grew stronger in the United States over the Christmas weekend as President George W. Bush pondered new ways to stabilize the country sinking deeper into sectarian strife.

Bush discussed his options with new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other senior security officials at his Camp David retreat in Maryland on Saturday.

And although the White House declined to disclose specifics, top administration officials are reported to be increasingly focusing on a proposal to pour up to 30,000 new troops into Iraq to help the 140,000-strong US force already there quell sectarian violence.

But a troop "surge" of that magnitude, experts say, will have to be financed through new budget appropriations, which in effect will give the new Democrat-controlled Congress a say in the matter.

The president was expected to ask for these funds early next year as he announces his highly-anticipated new Iraq policy.

However, signals that emerged from Capitol Hill Sunday indicated the White House may face a very uphill battle, if, as expected, it embraces the proposal.

Democrat Christopher Dodd, a prominent member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who visited Iraq last week, said he did not see how the "surge" could help reduce violence in Iraq, which, in his view, has grown worse over the past months.

"The commanders that I talked to last week and soldiers on the ground felt that a surge in troops, some 15,000 to 30,000 additional troops, was not going to contribute to the political or diplomatic solution that Iraq cries out for," Dodd told ABC News. "And so I believe it will be a mistake for us at this juncture to be adding more troops."

Dodd, who is considering a 2008 presidential run, also authored an article Sunday in Iowa's Des Moines Register newspaper, in which he argued that the United States should begin the process of getting troops out of Iraq - "within weeks, not months."

"If continuing this sacrifice held the promise of achieving American goals, I would support it," the senator wrote. "But our presence there has become a barrier to our goals."

Under the senator's plan, US troops should be partly withdrawn and partly redeployed to the Syrian border, northern Iraq, Qatar and Afghanistan, where they would join the fight against the resurgent Taliban and expand the hunt for Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, who also sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called Sunday for a deadline to be set for pulling US troops from Iraq rather than increasing their numbers.

"We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse," he argued in an article in The Washington Post. "You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you're only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who will control the Senate agenda beginning next month, made it clear last week he would be willing to support the "surge" only as a stop-gap measure tied to "a program to get us out" of Iraq.

However, during his press conference Wednesday, Bush insisted he was still determined to achieve "victory" in Iraq and wanted to keep the troops there until the job is done.

Meanwhile, the idea of having more American soldiers go to Iraq does not sit well with the public, either.

A CNN opinion poll conducted in mid-December showed only 11 percent of respondents supported the plan of boosting the US contingent in Iraq.

That was down from 17 percent, who supported the "surge" in a similar survey conducted jointly by ABC News and The Washington Post just two weeks earlier.

realjohnboy,

I've read only the first and the fourth page of this thread but I'll add a brief comment here.

Where will be be in Iraq at the end of 2007? It depends on what we do this year, of course, but I think we will be looking at another five years in the country.

The current outcry against a "surge" shows that neither its advocates or the media are doing a good job of explaining just what this surge should do. I have read literate and compelling pundits who insist that the whole issue, the only issue in Iraq right now, is security. If we do not somehow secure the country, or at least Baghdad, then all other plans or hopes are useless. If we secured Baghdad with an additonal 50,000 troops -- yes, it would become an armed camp -- the people of that city could at least live and go about their work and schooling. Only when Baghdad is secure can we begin to work on diplomatic solutions to the tribal divisions.

The Middle East was a land of tribes, not nation states, until the Brits carved out the present state lines early in the last century. Those lines exist today, with a few exceptions, such as Kurd areas. However, there was one nation-state that existed long before that time; the state of Iraq follows closely the lines of ancient Mesopotamia, the home of earliest civilization and the beginning of written language. Thus, Iraqis have a reason to identify with their country and not just with their tribes. Perhaps when all order and secuity break down, people DO resort to their elemenentary relationships and tribal brothers. Sunni and Shia lived side by side under Saddam, perhaps not always happily but they were not being killed by the tens of thousands in sectarian violence.

Kara, There are already too many negatives to save Iraq. There was a "surge" in troops last year when we added 15,000 more, but it had absolutely no effect in controlling violence; just the opposite happened. It's not a matter of adding 15,000 or 30,000 more troops to secure Iraq; it needs 300,000 more troops. If we are realistic, we don't have those 300,000 more troops to put in Iraq.

The government of Iraq is barely hanging onto a thread; it's not effective nor able to secure their own country. The addition of "trained police and military" is a lost cause, because it's being infiltrated by sectarian members to increase violence, not decrease it.

Iraq will become the puppet of Iran whether Bush admits to this flaw or not; it's the reality that will come sooner or later.

Bush has nowhere to go with his presidency, and has only one option left; have a war with Iran. That's the only way the American People will support him - unfortunately. We don't have the army or equipment for it, but that's another story.

c.i., it may be too late to save the country. As you will recall, I (like Johnboy) was against the war, went to the march in Washington, wrote senators, congressmen, and the prez. (Foolish enterprises, because they had long before 2003 decided to invade Iraq and had been busy fashioning the intel to back up their war-cries.)

We needed a strongman in place after our invasion-light (where was a Saddam figure when we needed him?) but the fate of Iraq ended up blowing in the winds. If you are into nation-building (I think of it as imperial democracy) then you should have some careful planning in place before the attack, set up your viceroy or strongman governor, as well as organized government institutions, and rule with an iron fist until you can teach the idea of democracy and see if it catches on in five or ten years. I'm sure the idea of democracy is fine to an Iraqi who can see his party or tribe in power; it is the minority parties who don't like democracy. Watching the current government trying to act like a democracy is like watching a 15-year-old trying to drive a Ferrari after one year of drivers' ed.

Thank you, Kara, for joining in. I am not sure I understand where you think we are, or should be/will be, going. Security in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad is important, and a surge might help. But with such a weak government in Iraq, there is no guarantee that any success from a surge would be sustainable.
I see that (perhaps it has been noted here), Joe Biden (Dem), another incoming committee chairman and a potential Presidential candidate, has come out agains the "surge" mentality.

John, I am not talking about a short-term surge. If we are to pull Iraq from the brink of disaster, I think we must maintain an additional 50,000 troops until security is a reality. It may take months or years to stabilize the situation.

I read about Biden saying that today. I am not a Biden fan, although he has earned a bit more respect from me in recent years. I think he is wrong, wrong, wrong to step in now and express an opinion about war strategy -- or perhaps it is more tactical than strategic. He should leave that kind of stuff to us armchair foreign policy wonks.

Kara, We don't have those 50,000 troops to keep in Iraq for any long-term assignments. They're stretched to the bones now, and many are serving two and three assignments in a war zone without much rest.

The army doesn't have the equipment or the ability to maintain that level of troops in Iraq for a long-term campaign.

This guy aint to optimistic about 2007. Paranoia? "Bush Could Usher in a Very Dangerous New Year" By Robert Parry.[December 26, 2006]. Intelligence sources say President Bush -- along with Israel's Ehud Olmert and the UK's Tony Blair -- are weighing the possibility of Israeli-led attacks on Syria and Iran in early 2007, with the United States providing logistical back-up. The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to "double-down" his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say. President Bush's goal would be to transcend the bloody quagmire bogging down U.S. forces in Iraq by achieving "regime change" in Syria and by destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, two blows intended to weaken Islamic militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The Israeli army and air force would carry the brunt of any new fighting albeit with the support of beefed-up U.S. ground and naval forces in the Middle East, the sources said. Bush is now considering a "surge" in U.S. troop levels in Iraq from about 140,000 to as many as 170,000. He also has dispatched a second aircraft carrier group to the coast of Iran. So far, however, Bush has confronted stiff opposition from the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff to the plan for raising troop levels in Iraq, partly because the generals don't think it makes sense to commit more troops without a specific military mission. But it's unclear how much the generals know about the expanded-war option which has been discussed sometimes in one-on-one meetings among the principals -- Bush, Olmert and Blair -- according to intelligence sources. Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, the three leaders have conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have little purpose. Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13; Blair visited the White House on Dec. 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18. All three leaders could salvage their reputations if a wider war broke out in the Middle East and then broke in their favor. Bush and Blair spearheaded the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that has since turned into a disastrous occupation. In summer 2006, Olmert launched offensives against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, drawing international condemnation for the deaths of hundreds of civilians and domestic criticism for his poorly designed war plans. The three leaders also find themselves cornered by political opponents. Bush's Republican Party lost control of both the House and Senate on Nov. 7; Blair succumbed to pressure from his own Labour Party and agreed to step down in spring 2007; and Olmert is suffering from widespread public disgust over the failed Lebanese war. Yet, despite these reversals, the three leaders have rebuffed advice from more moderate advisers that they adopt less confrontational strategies and consider unconditional negotiations with their Muslim adversaries....
http://www.alternet.org/stories/45852/

bookmarking.

Thank you, msolga, for checking in here. AUS, of course, is a player in Iraq. Any thoughts you might have about the sentiment in your country as we head into 2007 would be appreciated. -rjb-

rjb, I have a friend in Australia, and he's totally against Bush and Howard. He's not happy about their involvement in Iraq, and has the same disgust for Howard as he does for Bush because of their mismanagement and incompetence.

Good morning, rjb.
Good to see you & also this new thread. Very interesting reading so far.

Australia, as you'd know, is a very small player in Iraq. We are there only because the US is there. That's the sort of government we've got. Whatever you do, it seems we will follow. <sigh>
The fallout here is not as intense as in the US, for obvious reasons. And also because (so far! Fingers crossed!) there has not been a single Oz casualty. Not as a result of combat, anyway. However there is very strong opposition to our presence there (before the invasion & now). It is mounting daily. It is falling on deaf (government) ears.

It is extremely difficult to know what should be done in 2007. We, as part of the "coalition of the willing" share the blame for the devastation & chaos that is Iraq today. Morally, I believe we have a responsibility to do whatever is necessary to repair (what actually can be repaired) the damage we have done. At the very least, we should not be part of escalating the problem for ordinary Iraqi people.
Sending in more troops (from the US, or elsewhere) is simply going to worsen the situation in my opinion. I, like just about everyone else I know, believe the US & its allies can't "win" this war. The priority now should be to assist Iraq regain some sort of "normalcy", or as close as is possible in the terrible mess that country is in. If that means involving Iran & other neigbouring countries, then so be it. I simply don't believe that "western" outsiders can resolve a sectarian civil war by force. The US has already well & truly lost hearts & minds on this one & the most useful path would be to admit this (Ha!), cut its losses and work with others toward finding some real solutions. Most likely any proposed "solutions" will not suit US political & economic interests at all, but this is about Iraq, not the US.

From the MOL thread. Seemed very apt!:

Good evening. Mr Bush met with his advisors and emerged to say consultations are continuing. He said he would be meeting with members of Congress soon. That is going to be a tough audience, on both sides of the political aisle.
Here is what I think may happen. There may (or may not ) be a surge in troops, but it will be surge-lite and lasting only for a few months to give cover to those admin officials who support it.

The new policy that Mr Bush will announce is stepped up training of Iraqi soldiers combined with a phased withdrawal of US and coalition troops extending through about April or May of 2008.

The AP today quoted the deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi Army as saying that, instead of sending more soldiers, Washington should focus on funneling his country more equipment. "We are hoping 2007 will be the year of supplies," he said.

I think Congress will find this, despite the monetary cost, a much more palatable option to extricate us from Iraq.
Will it work? Probably not. Civil war may have already broken out. But at least we can appear to be supporting the government without it costing us 100 soldiers a month getting killed. -rjb-