THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Force is not required. All the Iraq government has to do is ask the US military to leave. Then our military will be happy to begin leaving as rapidly as they can.

1) The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;

(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers;

(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

As you know that's three conditions for success in Iraq and not "only" one.

Looks like ican stands alone in his stance on Iraq, and what he calls "success." LOL

US military looks to reduce role in Iraq

By ROBERT BURNS and LOLITA BALDOR, Associated Press Writers
2 hours, 10 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - U.S. military officials are narrowing the range of Iraq strategy options and appear to be focusing on reducing the U.S. combat role in 2008 while increasing training of Iraqi forces, a senior military official told The Associated Press on Monday.

The military has not yet developed a plan for a substantial withdrawal of forces next year. But officials are laying the groundwork for possible overtures to Turkey and Jordan on using their territory to move some troops and equipment out of Iraq, the official said. The main exit would remain Kuwait, but additional routes would make it easier and more secure for U.S. troops leaving western and northern Iraq.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because internal deliberations are ongoing, emphasized that the discussions do not prejudge decisions yet to be made by President Bush. Those decisions include [how] long to maintain the current U.S. troop buildup and when to make the transition to a larger Iraqi combat role.

It is widely anticipated that the five extra Army brigades that were sent to the Baghdad area this year will be withdrawn by late next summer. But it is far less clear whether the Bush administration will follow that immediately with additional drawdowns, as many Democrats in Congress are advocating.

Bush has mentioned publicly that he likes the idea, first proposed late last year by the Iraq Study Group, of switching the emphasis of U.S. military efforts from mainly combat to mainly support roles. But he also has said that this should not happen until Baghdad in particular is stable enough to enable Iraqi political leaders to make hard choices about reconciling rival interests among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

BTW, it says nothing about we will wait until the killings go below 1000 per month.

ican wrote :

Quote:

Force is not required. All the Iraq government has to do is ask the US military to leave. Then our military will be happy to begin leaving as rapidly as they can.

earlier ican wrote (in part) :

Quote:

1) The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;

(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers;

(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

As you know that's three conditions for success in Iraq and not "only" one.

the way i read ican , he would be happy if the iraqi government would ask the U.S. to leave .
however , he qualified success by the three objectives he outlined .
so now i'm wondering if he would be satisfied if the U.S. is asked by the iraqi government to leave , even though his three conditions may not have been met ?

YES, I would be satisfied!

would that not mean that the U.S. had NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN IRAQ ?
(and therefore all the dire predictions that he has made would likely take place in short order ?)

NO, that would mean the US had been successful in a manner other than I described. I think this because, if such were to happen, the Iraq government would be convinced they can themselves achieve the reductions in murders including the reduction in murderers (e.g., al-Qaeda) that they seek.

i always thought that ican felt that the U.S. MUST win in iraq or the insurgents will arrive on U.S. soil and bring havoc and destruction to the U.S.
if all it takes is the wish of the iraqi government for the U.S. troops to leave iraq , how can that be reconciled with the necessity of SUCCESS in iraq ?

I think I may have answered that above. You see, I really don't care who actually reduces the mass murders of Iraqi non-murderers as well as reduces the number of mass murderers (e.g., al-Qaeda) in Iraq. I simply want both drastically reduced. It's in both the self-interest of the Iraqi non-murderers and the American non-murderers.
hbg

ican, You really, really, don't know what you are talking about. Do you read the stuff posted on these threads? It says that the Iraqi military and police are infiltrated by the Sunni militia, some are engaged in murder, killing each other, and many who have been trained go AWOL.

Wut'sa matta you?

hbg: i always thought that ican felt that the U.S. MUST win in iraq or the insurgents will arrive on U.S. soil and bring havoc and destruction to the U.S. if all it takes is the wish of the iraqi government for the U.S. troops to leave iraq , how can that be reconciled with the necessity of SUCCESS in iraq ?

ican: I think I may have answered that above. You see, I really don't care who actually reduces the mass murders of Iraqi non-murderers as well as reduces the number of mass murderers (e.g., al-Qaeda) in Iraq. I simply want both drastically reduced. It's in both the self-interest of the Iraqi non-murderers and the American non-murderers.

I wonder how ican gets around his previous threat about our need to win in Iraq so we won't have to fight them at home? I guess that doesn't matter any more.

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, You really, really, don't know what you are talking about. Do you read the stuff posted on these threads? It says that the Iraqi military and police are infiltrated by the Sunni militia, some are engaged in murder, killing each other, and many who have been trained go AWOL.

Wut'sa matta you?

Yes, I do know what I am talking about.

What'sa true t'day ain't ness'arily true t'morr'a. The prob'ms ya cry about t'day are sol'able t'morr'a.

Your problem is you do not know what I am talking about because you are suffering a bad case of brain lock!

i always thought that ican felt that the U.S. MUST win in iraq or the insurgents will arrive on U.S. soil and bring havoc and destruction to the U.S.

...
The only problem is your imagination and what "you" think are the primary issues facing us as a result of Bush's illegal war. Your comments have ended up being nothing but bombast with no reality. I'm not even surprised you're not embarrassed by all your wrong-headed comments during the past several years.

hbg wrote :

Quote:

i always thought that ican felt that the U.S. MUST win in iraq or the insurgents will arrive on U.S. soil and bring havoc and destruction to the U.S.

i truly thought that one of ican's concerns was that "insurgents" would arrive on U.S. soil and would bring havoc and destruction ( DEATH ) to the U.S. unless the "insurgents" in iraq would first be destroyed or at least brought under control .
it now seems that is no longer one of his major concerns , that as long as the iraqi government asks the U.S. to leave , the U.S. troops would indeed leave .
it would seem to me that the danger of "insurgents" arriving in the U.S. would not be diminished simply because the iraqi government has asked the U.S. to leave .
i even think it might be possible that "insurgents" might be able to influence the iraqi government to make such a request (i'm certainly NOT convinced that the iraqi government is free of any influence by various groups - whatever they are called or whatever their religious/political/tribal affiliation might be .)
that's the way i see it right now .
hbg

old europe wrote:

ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

ican711nm wrote:

(1)The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;

(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year after that to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and

(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year after that to be denied sanctuary anywhere in Iraq by the Iraq government.

All one anyone has to do to prove my point is to go back on this thread from the very beginning to see who's telling the truth.

And I wish they do.

A Plan for Iraq
By Ayad Allawi
Washington Post
Saturday, August 18, 2007; Page A13


Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will report to Congress on the situation in my country. I expect that the testimony of these two good men will be qualified and nuanced, as politics requires. I also expect that their assessment will not capture the totality of the tragedy -- that more than four years after its liberation from Saddam Hussein, Iraq is a failing state, not providing the most basic security and services to its people and contributing to an expanding crisis in the Middle East.

Let me be clear. Responsibility for the current mess in Iraq rests primarily with the Iraqi government, not with the United States. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed to take advantage of the Iraqi people's desire for peaceful and productive lives and of the enormous commitment and sacrifices made by the United States and other nations. The expected "crisis summit" in Baghdad is further evidence of the near-complete collapse of the Iraqi government. The best outcome of the summit is perhaps a renewed effort or commitment for the participants to work together, which may buy a few more weeks or months of cosmetic political activity. But there will be no lasting political reconciliation under Maliki's sectarian regime.

Who could have imagined that Iraq would be in such crisis more than four years after Saddam Hussein? Each month 2,000 to 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed by terrorists and sectarian death squads. Electricity and water are available, at best, for only five to six hours a day. Baghdad, once evidence of Iraq's cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, is now a city of armed sectarian enclaves -- much like Beirut of the 1980s.

It is up to Iraqis to end the violence and bring stability, security and democracy to our country. I am working with my colleagues in parliament to build a nonsectarian majority coalition that will support the following six-point plan for a "new era" in Iraq and replace through democratic means the current Iraqi government.

• Iraq must be a full partner with the United States in the development of a security plan that leads to the withdrawal of the majority of U.S. forces over the next two years, and that, before then, gradually and substantially reduces the U.S. combat role. The United States is indispensable to peace and security in Iraq and the greater Middle East. But we owe it to America -- and, more important, to ourselves -- to start solving our own problems. This will not happen as long as the present government is in power.

• I propose declaring a state of emergency for Baghdad and all conflict areas. Iraq's security forces need to be reconstituted. Whenever possible, these reconstituted forces should absorb members of the sectarian and ethnic militias into a nonsectarian security command structure. Empowering militias is not a sustainable solution, because it perpetuates the tensions between communities and undermines the power and authority of the state. A state has no legitimacy if it cannot provide security.

• We need a regional diplomatic strategy that increasingly invests the United Nations and the Arab world in Iraqi security and reconstruction. Washington should not shoulder this diplomatic burden alone, as it largely has until now. Prime Minister Maliki has squandered Iraq's credibility in Arab politics, and he cannot restore it. In addition, Iraq needs to be more assertive in telling Iran to end its interference in Iraqi affairs and in persuading Syria to play a more constructive role in Iraq.

• Iraq must be a single, independent federal state. We should empower local and provincial institutions at the expense of sectarian politics and an all-powerful and overbearing Baghdad. Religion should be a unifying -- not divisive -- force in my country. Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiite, should take pride in their Islamic identity. But when religious sectarianism dominates politics, terrorists and extremists emerge as the sole winners.

• National reconciliation requires an urgent commitment to moderation and ending sectarian violence by integrating all Iraqis into the political process. We should recognize the contribution of the Kurds and the Kurdistan Regional Government to Iraq's democratic future. Reconciliation requires the active engagement of prominent Iraqi Shiite and Sunni political and religious leaders. Maliki has stalled the passage of legislation, proposed in March, to reverse de-Baathification. That proposal should be passed immediately.

• The Iraqi economy has been handicapped by corruption and inadequate security. We must emphasize restoration of the most basic infrastructure. There can be no sustainable economic development and growth without reliable electricity, running and potable water, and basic health care. Over time, Iraq needs to build a free-market economy with a prominent role for the private sector.

It is past time for change at the top of the Iraqi government. Without that, no American military strategy or orderly withdrawal will succeed, and Iraq and the region will be left in chaos.

The writer was interim prime minister of Iraq from 2004 to 2005.

...
IT WOULD BE BETTER IF ALL THOSE ROOTING AGAINST VICTORY IN IRAQ WENT AHEAD AND ADMITTED THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

_________________
He makes these stupid assumptions that he can't back up. I'd like to see him prove his point that anyone is rooting against victory in Iraq. Typical ican statement; no basis in fact.

My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.

What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.