9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 09:14 am
An Early Clash Over Iraq Report
An Early Clash Over Iraq Report
Specifics at Issue as September Nears
By Jonathan Weisman and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 16, 2007; A01

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

The skirmishing is an indication of the rising anxiety on all sides in the remaining few weeks before the presentation of what is widely considered a make-or-break assessment of Bush's war strategy, and one that will come amid rising calls for a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq.

With the report due by Sept. 15, officials at the White House, in Congress and in Baghdad said that no decisions have been made on where, when or how Petraeus and Crocker will appear before Congress. Lawmakers from both parties are growing worried that the report -- far from clarifying the United States' future in Iraq -- will only harden the political battle lines around the war.

White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told the White House that Bush's presentation plan was unacceptable. An aide to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said that "we are in talks with the administration and . . . Senator Levin wants an open hearing" with Petraeus.

Those positions only hardened yesterday with reports that the document would not be written by the Army general but instead would come from the White House, with input from Petraeus, Crocker and other administration officials.

"Americans deserve an even-handed assessment of conditions in Iraq. Sadly, we will only receive a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes," warned House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).

"That's all the more reason why they would need to testify," a senior Foreign Relations Committee aide said of Petraeus and Crocker. "We would want them to say whether they stand by all the information in the report." He spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to speak to reporters.

The legislation says that Petraeus and Crocker "will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress" before the delivery of the report. It also clearly states that the president "will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress" after consultation with the secretaries of state and defense and with the top U.S. military commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador.

But both the White House and Congress have widely described the assessment as coming from Petraeus. Bush has repeatedly referred to the general as the one who will be delivering the report in September and has implored the public and Republicans in Congress to withhold judgment until then. In an interim assessment last month, the White House said that significant progress has been shown in fewer than half of the 18 political and security benchmarks outlined in the legislation.

Several Republicans have hinted that their support will depend on a credible presentation by Petraeus, not only of tangible military progress but of evidence that the Iraqi government is taking real steps toward ethnic and religious reconciliation. One of them, Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), left for Iraq last night with Levin for his own assessment.

Petraeus and Crocker have said repeatedly that they plan to testify after delivering private assessments to Bush. U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad appeared puzzled yesterday when told that the White House had indicated that the two may not be appearing in public. They said they will continue to prepare for the testimony in the absence of instructions from Washington. "If anything, we just don't know the dates/times/or the committees that the assessment will be presented to," a senior military official in Baghdad said in an e-mail yesterday.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee aide said that, ideally, both Crocker and Petraeus would testify before that panel. The Senate committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee have also requested that Rice appear at a separate hearing but have received no response. A spokeswoman for Levin said that the senator expects at least Petraeus to testify before the Armed Services Committee but would be happy to have Crocker as well.

Although the reports from Petraeus and Crocker are the most eagerly awaited, several other assessments are also required by the May legislation. The Government Accountability Office is due to report on Iraqi political reconciliation and reconstruction by Sept. 1. An independent committee, headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, has been studying the training and capabilities of the Iraqi security forces and will report to Congress early next month. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said that the chiefs are making their own assessment of the situation in Iraq and will present it to Bush in the next few weeks.

Speaking to reporters traveling with him in Iraq yesterday, Petraeus said he is preparing recommendations on troop levels while getting ready to go to Washington next month. He declined to give specifics.

"We know that the surge has to come to an end," Petraeus said, according to the Associated Press. "I think everyone understands that, by about a year or so from now, we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now. The question is how do you do that . . . so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going."
---------------------------------------------------

Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 09:18 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Al-Qaeda has repeatedly declared their plans for achieving a worldwide caliphate. Based on their behavior to date, I see no evidence that they do not mean what they say they intend to achieve. The fact that they are fighting so hard to re-establish a sanctuary in Iraq, convinces me that they are convinced that they must chase us out of Iraq for them to achieve their goals.

What evidences leads you to think otherwise?


I haven't seen any evidence that AQ has the ability to run anything. How would they establish such a world-wide caliphate? You might as well be as afraid of aliens taking over the world; it's about as likely.

Yes, you have seen such evidence. I posted it here several times. I'll post it here again "if you ask me nicely."

Your opinion is not evidence.


I tell you again: the US is in no serious danger from AQ or any other terrorist organization. They have no ability to force us to do anything that we don't decide to do ourselves, at all. They never have, and never will.

Yes, you told me your opinion on that again.

Your opinion is not evidence.


You just don't understand the nature of terrorism, and perceive them in the same way as you would a traditional opposing military force. They are not traditional in any way, they lack the capabilities of a traditional force in every way. To fear the 'worldwide caliphate' is ridiculous. If we pull out of Iraq, it will bring AQ no closer to achieving that goal - which, by the way, is not their actual goal, and you're a moron if you think it is. AQ stating that they want a 'worldwide caliphate' is akin to the US calling for Democracies in every country. A dream mixed with a PR push.

I think you do not understand the nature of terrorism. It is the nature of terroism to mass murder non-murderers. It is the nature of terrorism that only a relatively few terrorists can mass murder thousands of non-murderers. It is the nature of terrorists to not wear uniforms that identify them as terrorists before they mass murder non-murderers. It is the nature of terrorists to cripple infrastructure. It is the nature of terrorsts for only a few terrorists at a time to often infiltrate without detection the communities they seek to destroy.

I have presented evidence here that the AQ confederation has declared their goal to be the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. I'll post it again, "if you ask me nicely." You are a moron if you think otherwise.

I have presented evidence here that the AQ confederation has declared that re-establishing sanctuary in Iraq is one of several necessary steps toward establishing their worldwide caliphate. I'll post it again, "if you ask me nicely."

Your opinion is not evidence.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 09:43 am
Quote:
The Men of MiTT
A U.S. military transition team stands up Iraqi troops.
by Matt Sanchez
Daily Standard
08/15/2007 12:00:00 AM

The Rogues of the 3-5/6.
Iraq
BRIEFING BEGINS at 0800 at FOB Prosperity, and I was ready for the typical "SIGACTS." Small push pins on a magnified satellite image map on the wall showed where each significant act occurred: SAF, IED, EFP, a morse-code of letters that usually meant danger, explosions, and possibly a dead body. But these were the Rogues, the 3rd Battalion, 5th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division Military Transitional Team (MiTT), and they had a different mission than most stationed here in Baghdad. First Sergeant Joseph McFarlane, a career Army man whose father served in Vietnam and whose grandfathers both served in WWII, read the latest news from the place the soldiers cared about most--back home.

He read stories about broken bridges, baseball scores, and which movie earned the most at the box office that weekend. Sergeant Arturo Guerra, of El Paso Texas, described a video game where border agents arrested illegal immigrants. Whittingham, a young soldier, had to get up and tell a joke. Many laughed, mostly because the joke wasn't funny, so they made him promise to stand up the next morning and try it again.

But the mission that day was serious, and each member of the 3-5/6 had the dangers of Baghdad in the back of his mind. Jamia was once a majority Sunni neighborhood where professors, bureaucrats, and other favorites of the former regime had lived, until Saddam was overthrown and vengeful Shia drove the residents out. The neighborhood's attractive and centrally located multi-level homes, with high ceilings and spacious roof patios, would be worth a fortune in Manhattan, but here, in Baghdad, there â s a 70 percent vacancy rate. The majority of the inhabitants have fled to areas where they are less threatened, and the new occupants are often not so neighborly. Al Qaeda has been known to use abandoned homes as â safe houses â in order to carry out the order of the day--terrorizing the populace. These operations used to target American forces, but AQI now seems to prefer attacking Iraqi soldiers.

The Rogues were sent to this troubled zone as a result of the troop surge. Before, they had been on Haifa Street, where, in January of 2007, they were ambushed and had to hold their ground for nearly six hours. "Everyone survived," said Major Chris Norrie, an armor officer cross-trained to supervise the mentorship of the 5th Brigade Iraqi Army. During the firefight, the Rogues tried to rally their fellow Iraqi soldiers, some fought, and some disappeared.

The surge sent more troops into Haifa--by the time I got there in July, the 4-9 Cavalry remarked how much calmer one of Baghdad premiere boulevards had become. So, the 3-5/6 was sent to another tough neighborhood where they were to make another go at mentoring the Iraqi military.

The Killing Fields

The "Killing Fields" are at the center of the Jamia neighborhood violence. "We think they dump bodies here because it's a lot easier to get on and off the main road," remarked Major Norrie. The field was nothing more than an open dirt plot of Baghdadi weeds with trash mixed in that often covered IEDs. In the center, there was a television antenna, but no one was sure if it worked.

Signals from cellphones did, however, activate Improvised Explosive Devices. The month before, a deeply buried IED (the most effective type) had killed five Iraqi soldiers. "This Humvee was thrown 150 feet from the explosion," said operations adviser Captain Pete Kilpatrick when he motioned to a vehicle that had been literally torn in half. He kept saying "we," even when he spoke of the Iraqi Army, and I didn't always know who the Captain was talking about, but soon realized that to the Captain it didn't matter. The 3-5/6 works hand in hand with Iraqi soldiers--their deaths were a loss, just like any other. The vehicle was dragged back to the Green Zone where it lay, in waiting, on the Camp Honor parking lot.

In the hallway of the Iraqi Army base, the photos of young slain soldiers who have died in the line of duty smile at visitors. I accompanied intelligence adviser Lieutenant Morton Ellison to observe the interrogation of a man arrested on suspicion of terrorist activities. The suspect confessed before I saw him. "It's the strangest thing," said the young Ellison who was roughly the same age as the blindfolded man sitting Indian-style on the carpet, "a lot of these guys are really proud of what they do, so they brag about it."

In an effort to get the Iraqi equivalent of "street cred'", the detainee confessed to several murders and to planting IEDs. I've witnessed a couple of interrogations that have gone the same way, men like this one casually discussing the people they had murdered.

Clear, Hold, Control

Some neighborhoods, like Jamia, are tired of the violence and residents are tipping off the Iraqi Army. Under the supervision of the 3-5/6, the Iraqi soldiers have set up Entry Control Points to observe who comes in and out of the area. Neighbors have brought the soldiers water, one even lent Iraqi soldiers a precious air-conditioner. The violence has gone down, noticeably. During a recent complex attack, insurgents detonated two car bombs and employed small arms fire and RPGs against the Iraqi soldiers, but the Iraqis held their ground. "A couple of months ago, these guys had no confidence, now they know they're needed and they're willing to fight," said Major Norrie.

Matt Sanchez, a recipient of the Jeane Kirkpatrick Award for Academic Freedom, is a student at Columbia University and holds the rank of Corporal in the United States Marine Corps. He is currently embedded as a civilian journalist in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 03:49 pm
Quote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html
The Caliphate: One nation, under Allah, with 1.5 billion Muslims

By James Brandon | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
AMMAN, JORDAN - The three middle-aged men sitting in an Indian restaurant in Jordan's capital scarcely look like Islamic revolutionaries. They are smartly dressed in Western-style suits and sip thoughtfully from cans of Pepsi as they share their plan to reshape the Muslim world.

"[President] Bush says that we want to enslave people and oppress their freedom of speech," says Abu Abdullah, a senior member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation. "But we want to free all people from being slaves of men and make them slaves of Allah."

Hizb ut-Tahrir says that Muslims should abolish national boundaries within the Islamic world and return to a single Islamic state, known as "the Caliphate," that would stretch from Indonesia to Morocco and contain more than 1.5 billion people.

It's a simple and seductive idea that analysts believe may someday allow the group to rival existing Islamic movements, topple the rulers of Middle Eastern nations, and undermine those seeking to reconcile democracy and Islam and build bridges between East and West.

"A few years ago people laughed at them," says Zeyno Baran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the leading expert on Hizb ut-Tahrir. "But now that [Osama] bin Laden, [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, and other Islamic groups are saying they want to recreate the Caliphate, people are taking them seriously."

Even more moderate Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt pay lip-service to the ideal of reestablishing the Caliphate, leaving less ideological space for Muslims who want to move toward Western models of democracy.

"The Caliphate is a rallying point between the radicals and the more moderate Islamists," says Stephen Ulph, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation. "The idea of a government based on the Caliphate has a historical pedigree and Islamic legitimacy that Western systems of government by their very nature do not have."

But unlike Al Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir believes it can recreate the Caliphate peacefully. Its activists aim to pursuade Muslim political and military leaders that reestablishing the Caliphate is their Islamic duty. Once these leaders invite Hizb ut-Tahrir to take power - effectively staging a military coup - the party would then repeat the process in other countries before linking them up to form a revived Caliphate.

"We spread our ideas by addressing people directly," says Abdullah Shakr, a fluent English-speaker, who, like all three men, spent time in Jordanian jails for membership in the party. "We don't care if the government knows about us, but ... we try not to catch their attention."
The party was founded in Jerusalem in 1953 by a Palestinian judge, Sheikh Taqiuddin Al-Nabhani. He taught that the Muslim world had grown poor and weak ever since the Caliphate was abolished by Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk in 1924.

The Caliphate was created after the death of Islam's founder Muhammad in 632 AD. During the following centuries the Caliphate expanded Islam's territories by conquest and treaty to cover most of the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa. As the Ottoman Turks lost ground to the West, they increasingly donned the cloak of the Caliphate. In the 1920s, Muslims throughout the British empire, particularly in India, used the restoration of the Caliphate as an anti-colonial rallying point. "People look back on the Caliphate and see its success as a poor reflection on the condition of the Muslim world today," says Mr. Ulph.

Hizb ut-Tahrir promises that a revived Caliphate will end corruption and bring prosperity - though the group doesn't say how. It will let Muslims challenge, and ultimately conquer, the West, its followers say.

"The Muslim world has resources like oil but it lacks the leadership that will rule us by Islamic law and make this jihad that the whole world is afraid of," says Shakr, a Jordanian member of the group, who says the success of the Caliphate will also encourage more converts to Islam - eventually making the whole world Islamic.

Hizb ut-Tahrir's modern leader is a Jordanian known as Emir Atta Abu Rashta. He lives in a secret location in the Middle East and communicates mainly through the Internet. The party is illegal in all Arab countries as well as Germany. Britain mooted banning the group after last year's London bombings. Ms. Baran wrote in the November issue of Foreign Affairs that the attacks were carried out by members of a Hizb ut-Tahrir splinter group. The British government has not formally accused Hizb ut-Tahrir or Hizb ut-Tahrir splinter groups of involvement. Hizb ut-Tahrir's British branch has condemned both the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks. [ Editor's note: Due to an editing error, the original version did not cite Baran or include Hizb ut-Tahrir's condemnation.]

Hizb ut-Tahrir's critics rarely see the organization as a direct threat, however.

"Many people see Hizb ut-Tahrir's aims as utterly unrealistic," says Nadim Shehadi, a Middle East analyst at Chatham House. "Even their understanding of the Caliphate as a strong, powerful state is questionable. Historically the Caliphate only worked because it was very loose and extremely decentralized."

Many analysts say that real danger is that the group radicalizes its followers who may subsequently graduate into militancy.
"People who join won't necessarily end up as violent jihadists," says Shiv Malik, a journalist. "But Hizb ut-Tahrir can provide [them with an] ideological backbone."


Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a mass movement yet, but analysts warn the group has a growing prominence among educated professionals in Europe and the Middle East.

"In Europe they tell Muslims that they have to create parallel societies and that they should not follow European laws," says Ms. Baran. "If this happens it will impossible for people like me to argue that Islam can be democratic."

Baran estimates the group has tens of thousands of followers in Central Asia. "They're stronger in places where people know less about Islam and can't read the Koran in Arabic," she says. "They're not as popular in the Middle East because they don't get involved in the Palestinian cause."
Hizb ut-Tahrir takes a more gradual, long-term strategy for spreading the territory under Muslim rule.

"Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate - I would not say terrorize - the enemies of Islam," says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist. "In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad."

"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world," says Abu Mohammed, a pseudonym. "And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."

And after that? Abu Mohammed pauses and fiddles with his Pepsi before replying.

"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam," he says, smiling. "This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light."
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 05:20 pm
i was just looking at the history channel to refresh my memory re. CRUSADES .
apparently there were NINE of them during which christians were trying to defeat and subjugate the muslims .
i assume that many muslims are perhaps more acutely aware of those crusades than we are in europe and north-america since the battles took place in their lands .
perhaps it's not too surprising that some muslims think they ought to have their CRUSADES - particularly after being invaded over and over again !
hbg

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~p3carney/Crusades/CS010471.jpg

HISTORY CHANNEL - THE CRUSADES
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 06:28 pm
Troops in Iraq to reach record level

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 7 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The number of U.S. troops in Iraq could jump to 171,000
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 07:19 pm
hamburger wrote:
i was just looking at the history channel to refresh my memory re. CRUSADES .
apparently there were NINE of them during which christians were trying to defeat and subjugate the muslims .
i assume that many muslims are perhaps more acutely aware of those crusades than we are in europe and north-america since the battles took place in their lands .
perhaps it's not too surprising that some muslims think they ought to have their CRUSADES - particularly after being invaded over and over again !
hbg
...

Except the first one in 1099 that defeated and subjugated the Palestinians for about 88 years--all of the other Christian crusades failed to defeat and subjugate any Muslims. However, others succeeded where the Christians mostly failed until after the end of WWI. The Brits then controlled Palestine for about 29 years.

Quote:
0135 BC: Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
...
0040 BC: Romans conquer part of Palestine.
0073 AD: Jerusalem conquered by Romans and all resistance ends.
...
0638 AD: Arabs conquer Jerusalem.
1099 AD: Crusaders conquer Palestine.
1187 AD: Saladin conquers Palestine.
1229 AD: Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD: Turks conquer Palestine.
1516 AD: Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD: Egypt conquers Palestine.
1841 AD: Ottoman Empire Again conquers Palestine.
...
1918 AD: Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine, and British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1947 AD: The British relinquish their protectorate to the UN


Maybe some Muslims are still angry 'cause the Christians, unlike the others, tried and failed eight times. Shocked
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 11:54 am
Quote:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 04:23 pm
Quck Strikes Planned in Iraq, but...

"The military has calmed areas of the country in the past, then moved on to other places only to find insurgents return to the just-calmed area. Commanders have said the extra troops from the buildup are helping them fight that problem now.

It also is not a new development that as coalition forces fight a problem in one area, militants rise up in another. Odierno did not answer the question of whether he has enough troops to go after regrouping insurgents in isolated locations."

I know the answer to that question; they don't have enough troops at 172,000. Why the general refused to answer that question is based on his fear that saying anything negative will get him fired.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 05:06 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quck Strikes Planned in Iraq, but...

"The military has calmed areas of the country in the past, then moved on to other places only to find insurgents return to the just-calmed area. Commanders have said the extra troops from the buildup are helping them fight that problem now.

It also is not a new development that as coalition forces fight a problem in one area, militants rise up in another. Odierno did not answer the question of whether he has enough troops to go after regrouping insurgents in isolated locations."

I know the answer to that question; they don't have enough troops at 172,000. Why the general refused to answer that question is based on his fear that saying anything negative will get him fired.

Your opinion is not evidence.

You pretend to a knowledge you do not have.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 05:33 pm
ican, We've had surges in Iraq in the past, and it hasn't worked? Do you know why? Not enough troops. The insurgents know that our military surge is temporary. I'll give you one guess what they are doing, and planning for the future.

We can't win the war in Iraq with 160,000 troops.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 05:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, We've had surges in Iraq in the past, and it hasn't worked? Do you know why? Not enough troops. The insurgents know that our military surge is temporary. I'll give you one guess what they are doing, and planning for the future.

We can't win the war in Iraq with 160,000 troops.


So should we go ahead and send another 500,000 in now?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 07:00 pm
mm wrote :

Quote:
So should we go ahead and send another 500,000 in now?


if i understand ican correctly from his many posts , the united states should do whatever is necessary to win .
does that include sending 500,00 soldiers to iraq ?
i don't know , but if that is required to win the war ... ... ?
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 08:39 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, We've had surges in Iraq in the past, and it hasn't worked? Do you know why? Not enough troops. The insurgents know that our military surge is temporary. I'll give you one guess what they are doing, and planning for the future.

We can't win the war in Iraq with 160,000 troops.

OK! Let's exchange opinions.

How many Iraqi troops can say 80,000 US troops train within ten years, while the other 80,000 are chasing al-Qaeda? I claim that within ten years, 80,000 of our troops can train well over a million Iraqi troops capable of adequately securing the Iraqi people against all the mass murderers of non-murderers in and outside Iraq, including al-Qaeda in and outside Iraq.

To accomplish this it is only necessary for the Iraqi people to unite behind one government. To accomplish that, the Iraqi people must decide which is more important:
(1) revenge and death;
(2) or cooperation and mutual self-defense.

I bet it will take them a while to decide, but they will decide on (2) by January 2009.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 08:55 pm
hamburger wrote:
mm wrote :

Quote:
So should we go ahead and send another 500,000 in now?


if i understand ican correctly from his many posts , the united states should do whatever is necessary to win .
does that include sending 500,00 soldiers to iraq ?
i don't know , but if that is required to win the war ... ... ?
hbg

Yes, hamburger, the US should do whatever is necessary to win in Iraq. The question we are currently addressing is what is necessary for the US to win in Iraq?

In my opinion, 500,000 US troops in Iraq will not produce an Iraq government capable of adequately securing the Iraqi people against all the mass murderers of non-murderers in and outside Iraq, including al-Qaeda in and outside Iraq. It will do nothing more than encourage the Iraqi people to continue indefinitely option (1) revenge and death {please see my previous response to cice}.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 09:10 pm
ican, We don't have 500,000 troops to put into Iraq; that leaves all our other responsibilities vacant.

It doesn't matter whether we "win" a military war without an effective Iraqi government.

We can't remain as occupiers of Iraq for another ten years. All that will do is increase the recruits for al Qaeda world-wide, increase the sectarian violence, and more children will be left without parents.

Nothing is secure in Iraq; not even the Green Zone.

The US does not have the manpower or treasure to spend in Iraq for the next ten years. In case you haven't noticed, the world economy is now in a tizzy. We can't continue to spend money on bullets and bombs while our own infrastructure breaks down.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 04:56 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, We don't have 500,000 troops to put into Iraq; that leaves all our other responsibilities vacant.

As I posted previously, whether we have 500,000 troops or not, we don't need more than 160,000 in Iraq to win in Iraq.

It doesn't matter whether we "win" a military war without an effective Iraqi government.

Winning the military war is a prerequisite for us winning an effective government in Iraq.

We can't remain as occupiers of Iraq for another ten years. All that will do is increase the recruits for al Qaeda world-wide, increase the sectarian violence, and more children will be left without parents.

Of course we can remain in Iraq another ten years. What you said will happen if we stay until we win, will actually happen if we leave before we win.

Nothing is secure in Iraq; not even the Green Zone.

Nothing yet is secure in Iraq.

The US does not have the manpower or treasure to spend in Iraq for the next ten years. In case you haven't noticed, the world economy is now in a tizzy. We can't continue to spend money on bullets and bombs while our own infrastructure breaks down.

We've got the manpower and treasure to pay for both the required ordnance and the required maintenance of infrastructure. It's better that some of our infrastructure occassionally falls down while we are in Iraq, than frequently blows up after we leave Iraq before winning.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 05:09 pm
ci: The US does not have the manpower or treasure to spend in Iraq for the next ten years. In case you haven't noticed, the world economy is now in a tizzy. We can't continue to spend money on bullets and bombs while our own infrastructure breaks down.

ican: We've got the manpower and treasure to pay for both the required ordnance and the required maintenance of infrastructure. It's better that some of our infrastructure occassionally falls down while we are in Iraq, than frequently blows up after we leave Iraq before winning.

And how do you suppose they are going to accomplish this? Details, please.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 05:14 pm
ican, If you know how to read and understand the English language, and understand the underlying nuance, please read the following article. I really don't give you too much hope, because you fail to understand what a failure Bush's war is.


Shiite militia expands grip in Baghdad
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 05:55 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
How many Iraqi troops can say 80,000 US troops train within ten years, while the other 80,000 are chasing al-Qaeda? I claim that within ten years, 80,000 of our troops can train well over a million Iraqi troops capable of adequately securing the Iraqi people against all the mass murderers of non-murderers in and outside Iraq, including al-Qaeda in and outside Iraq.


one of the problems seems to be that whenever another group of iraqis gets trained for either the iraqi army or police force , they often go out to kill each other wearing their iraqi uniforms - sometimes they even kill american soldiers , i understand .
many of the army/police that have been trained simple seem to go back to their villages - they prefer not to be killed in combat .
i don't think there are any simple solutions that can be imported from the west to solve the iraqi INSECURITY problem .
while larger cities in iraq had fairly advanced/sophisticated societies/citizens , many have left the country by now . the problem seems to be with the large tribal societies that fall outside of the large cities . the members of those tribal societies seem to be governed by their tribal chiefs even today , if i understand some books/reports being written by insiders .
anyhow , judging by achievements to-date it would seem to take a long time to affect changes - are americans willing to pour money and resources(PEOPLE'S LIVES !) into a pit that does not seem to have a bottom .
i'd compare it to walking across quicksand ; i guess it can be done , but i'd rather not attempt it - there does not seem to be any good reason for it . i'd rather make a LONG detour !
hbg
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 06:32:02