9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 02:01 pm
I doubt very muh it makes any difference whether they have military experience or not. When McCain came back from Iraq, and gave his "positive" report about how "safe" it was in Iraq, I knew he didn't understand much about Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 02:41 pm
Thinking some more about historical precedent, it occurred to me that in WWII, it took 4 years of war and 7 years of occupation to help both the Japanese and Germans develop rational democratic societies. In the case, of the Civil war, after 4 years of war, it took 99 years from the end of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 and the passage of the Civil Rights Act to fully end the "separate but equal crap," and fully develop rational democratic societies in both the southern and northern states of the US.

Unlike Japan and Germany that suffered relatively insignificant numbers and rates of mass murders among their populations after WWII, the number and rate of mass murders suffered within the southern states after the Civil War were significant. In the case of Iraq, the number and rate of such murders are even more significant. So I expect that the time required to develop a rational democratic society in Iraq will take more than 7 years and less then 106 years. It would take until April Fools Day, 2010 to accomplish that in Iraq in 7 years.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 04:30 pm
Isn't it interesting that the Maliki government is showing some "progress" in their government several weeks before Petraaeus reports to Bush and the congress - all in preparation for the big show.


Sunni politicians raise doubts over deal By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 40 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - Sunni politicians applauded goals set down in an agreement hammered out by the country's top leaders under intense American pressure but expressed doubt Monday that the U.S.-backed prime minister would actually see them through.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and four other senior leaders declared Sunday they had reached a consensus on a number of issues, including freeing detainees held without charge, easing the ban on former Saddam Hussein supporters in government posts, regulating the oil industry and holding provincial elections.

No details were released, and most measures require parliamentary approval.

But in a step toward implementing the deal, U.S. and Iraqi officials announced that coalition forces would increase the number of detainees released during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which begins next month.

"Releases will start as early as this week and continue through the end of Ramadan," the U.S. command said in a statement. It did not say how many would be freed.

President Bush hailed the agreement, saying it "begins to establish new power-sharing agreements."

"These leaders ... recognize the true and meaningful reconciliation that needs to take place," Bush said in a brief statement Monday upon arrival in Albuquerque, N.M. "They recognize this is a process. Yesterday's agreement reflects their commitment to work together for the benefit of all Iraqis to further the process."

However, the deal did not convince the main Sunni Arab political bloc to take back the government posts they abandoned this month over differences with al-Maliki, a Shiite.

The Sunni walkout has paralyzed the government ahead of a crucial report to Congress by Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, which will likely determine the fate of the troubled U.S. military mission in Iraq.

Some key Sunni figures dismissed the agreement as a stalling tactic by al-Maliki to ease pressure from Washington.

"Our position is that this meeting represents a new phase of procrastination and does not honestly aim at solving the problems quickly," said Khalaf al-Ilyan, a leader of the Sunni bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front. "I think that no real or practical solution will come out of this."

Another Front leader, Adnan al-Dulaimi, said the accord included "good decisions that would serve the whole Iraqi people."

"But we doubt that they will be implemented," he said. "All our experience with al-Maliki indicates that this is another new set of delaying measures. They give you a glimmer of hope, but at the end of the day you get nothing but promises."

With opposition to the war mounting in the United States, American diplomats have been pressing for the Iraqis to demonstrate political progress ahead of the Sept. 15 report to Congress.

U.S. officials are confident they can point to progress in curbing violence, but Crocker has expressed frustration over the lack of movement toward political reconciliation among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

On Monday, Crocker called Sunday's accord an "important step forward for political progress, national reconciliation and development."

A miracle is happening right before our very eyes; the Iraqi government showing progress!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 07:05 pm
I think Bush should tell Maliki that either a governable agreement is made by the middle of September that has the support of at least three-fourths of the Iraq Parliament, or the US military will begin focusing exclusively on sealing Iraq's borders and stalking al-Qaeda until such time as a majority of the Iraq parliament asks us to leave Iraq.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 07:26 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
Thinking some more about historical precedent, it occurred to me that in WWII, it took 4 years of war and 7 years of occupation to help both the Japanese and Germans develop rational democratic societies.


ican : i'm sure you know that the first german FEDERAL election was held in 1949 - 4 years after the war ended .
i happened to live in germany at that time and remember the exitement prior to that election .
trade unions , political parties and regional governments were established prior to that date .
looking back , it's interesting to remember that adenauer and churchill got along very well ; general de gaulle bussed adenauer on both of his cheeks - much to his surprise , but he did not like president kennedy much - even though they were both catholics - , he thought he was rather "brash" !
adenauer really thought very highly of V.P. johnson who introduced him to the texas legislature with the words :
"it's an honour and a privilege to introduce to you one of the great statesmen ,
chancellor adenauer of germany ! " .
adenauer just loved it !
johnson sure was one smooth operator !
hbg


"At the German federal election, 1949 Adenauer became the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany after World War II. He held this position from 1949 to 1963, a period which spans most of the preliminary phase of the Cold War."
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 05:17 am
From Juan Cole.

Quote:
Churchill on When to Throw in the Towel on Iraq

Glenn Greenwald once remarked that "the highest achievement to which one can aspire in the neocon universe it to be compared to Winston Churchill."

So Churchill would advocate another surge and toughing it out forever in Iraq, right? Here is what he wrote in 1922, three years after Britain was awarded Iraq by the Versailles Treaty as a 'mandate' (i.e. colony):

Quote:
"Winston S. Churchill to David Lloyd George (Churchill papers: 17/27) 1 September 1922

I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions. The Turkish menace has got worse; Feisal is playing the fool, if not the knave; his incompetent Arab officials are disturbing some of the provinces and failing to collect the revenue; we overpaid £200,000 on last year's account which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus entailing a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never sanctioned by Parliament; a further deficit, in spite of large economies, is nearly certain this year on the civil expenses owing to the drop in the revenue. I have had to maintain British troops at Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel: this has upset the programme of reliefs and will certainly lead to further expenditure beyond the provision I cannot at this moment withdraw these troops without practically inviting the Turks to come in. The small column which is operating in the Rania district inside our border against the Turkish raiders and Kurdish sympathisers is a source of constant anxiety to me.

I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here or from India. There is scarcely a single newspaper - Tory, Liberal or Labour - which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. The enormous reductions which have been effected have brought no goodwill, and any alternative Government that might be formed here - Labour, Die-hard or Wee Free - would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. Owing to the difficulties with America, no progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources.

I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out. That at any rate would be a solution. Whether we should clear out of the country altogether or hold on to a portion of the Basra vilayet is a minor issue requiring a special study. It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum the King, and still more the Constituent Assembly, will implore us to remain. If they

Page 2

do, shall we not be obliged to remain? If we remain, shall we not be answerable for defending their frontier? How are we to do this if the Turk comes in? We have no force whatever that can resist any serious inroad. The War Office, of course, have played for safety throughout and are ready to say 'I told you so' at the first misfortune.

Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. The victories of the Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedan world. At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

From Martin Gilbert, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL IV, Companion Volume Part 3, London: Heinemann, 1977, pp. 1973-74.

From: This web site, winstonchurchill.org.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 07:22 am
[I don't know which iraq thread to post in]

Into Thin Air

Quote:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 12:28 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
Thinking some more about historical precedent, it occurred to me that in WWII, it took 4 years of war and 7 years of occupation to help both the Japanese and Germans develop rational democratic societies.


ican : i'm sure you know that the first german FEDERAL election was held in 1949 - 4 years after the war ended .
i happened to live in germany at that time and remember the exitement prior to that election .
trade unions , political parties and regional governments were established prior to that date .
looking back , it's interesting to remember that adenauer and churchill got along very well ; general de gaulle bussed adenauer on both of his cheeks - much to his surprise , but he did not like president kennedy much - even though they were both catholics - , he thought he was rather "brash" !
adenauer really thought very highly of V.P. johnson who introduced him to the texas legislature with the words :
"it's an honour and a privilege to introduce to you one of the great statesmen ,
chancellor adenauer of germany ! " .
adenauer just loved it !
johnson sure was one smooth operator !
hbg


"At the German federal election, 1949 Adenauer became the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany after World War II. He held this position from 1949 to 1963, a period which spans most of the preliminary phase of the Cold War."

When did the allies cease occupying Germany?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 01:22 pm
Quote:
[I don't know which iraq thread to post in


Apparently you can pick from any of the eleven.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 02:02 pm
ican711nm wrote:

When did the allies cease occupying Germany?


That really is an interesting question ...

The Allied Control Council was not formally dissolved in 1948, but ceased all activity except the operations of the Four-Power Authorities, namely the management of the Spandau Prison where persons convicted at the Nuremberg Trials were held until 1987, and the Berlin Air Safety Center.

Besides that, allied laws were officially valid in (West-) Berlin until 1990 - which meant e.g. the carrying of handweapons could be punished with the death penality in the American sector.


The Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of
the Federal Republic of Germany
(May 5, 1955) is, however, generally (and legally) seen as end of the occupation in the three former West Zones. (A possible different event/dat could be the Signing of the Paris Agreements [23 October 1954])
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 02:24 pm
Quote:
Operation Phantom Strike
How the U.S. military is demolishing al Qaeda in Iraq.
by Mario Loyola
Weekly Standard
09/03/2007, Volume 012, Issue 47

Falluja, Iraq

On August 15, several hours after night fell over Baghdad, an air assault squadron of the 3rd Infantry Division launched the first attack of Operation Marne Husky. A dozen darkened transport and attack helicopters took off and headed south along the Tigris River, carrying a full company of infantry--about 120 young riflemen with night goggles and weapons loaded. Their objective was a hamlet several dozen miles away. At about 11 P.M., the force landed and rapidly surrounded several small structures. The occupants were taken by surprise. Five suspected insurgents were captured. By 4 A.M., the entire team was airborne again.

Every night since then similar scenes have unfolded at dozens of locations in and around Baghdad--all part of a larger operation named Phantom Strike. The attacks involve units of all sizes and configurations, coming in by air and land. In some cases, the units get out quickly. In others, they pitch tents for an extended stay. The idea is to keep the enemy--al Qaeda and its affiliates--on the defense and constantly guessing, thereby turning formerly "safe" insurgent areas into areas of prohibitive risk for them.

Time and space

The impetus for Phantom Strike was, in a way, born in Washington, where Congress created a series of benchmarks for progress in Iraq by mid-September, at which point an "interim report" is required from Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander. The legislation inadvertently (perhaps "negligently" is a better word) created a "Tet" opportunity for al Qaeda here. If it can dominate headlines with spectacular mass-casualty

suicide attacks in the days and weeks leading up to the report, the political climate in Washington might turn irretrievably against the military effort, thereby snatching a victory for the terrorists that they have failed to win on the ground. (Just as the Viet Cong's Tet offensive in 1968, while a military debacle for them, convinced U.S. media and political elites that that war was lost.) With this in mind, operational planners earlier this year began laying out a strategy to disrupt al Qaeda's ability to carry out the expected attacks.

Learning from past mistakes, commanders of the "surge" forces now take territory only if they can hold it. But for certain elements of Phantom Strike, they are making an exception to that rule. Divisional commands across Iraq have been instructed to cash in their accumulated intel and attack insurgents where they are most likely to be hiding--whether it makes sense to hold the territory or not. In planning rooms across the central third of Iraq, commanders looked at their target wish-lists--places where they had taken fire in the past, or tracked possible insurgents, or gotten credible tips from the population--and chose the most enticing ones.

The Joint Campaign Plan, a document that operationalizes the surge in accordance with Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, calls for coalition forces to give the government of Iraq "the time and space that it needs to succeed," according to military officers. The practical emphasis has been on "space." By pushing coalition forces out from their bases and into neighborhoods across Baghdad and other major urban centers in Iraq, commanders have sought to establish "area security" through "clear, control, and retain" operations. Key to retaining these areas is the participation of Iraqi Security Forces and other nonmilitary Iraqi government support.

The success enjoyed in places like Anbar province has come because security forces convinced people that they were there to stay. Those populations have shown their appreciation by joining the fight against al Qaeda in their neighborhoods, joining the police, and establishing neighborhood watch systems. Purely disruptive raids in which neither control nor retention is sought have thus fallen somewhat into disfavor.

But there is one good reason not to abandon them altogether. Disruption is a way to seize and maintain the initiative. Disruptive attacks keep the enemy off-balance, guessing as to your next move. That makes him concentrate on defense, and put off his own attacks. It's like a boxer keeping his opponent on the ropes with a flurry of jabs until the right moment for a knock-out blow.

Operation Marne Husky is just such a disruptive operation. Most of General Rick Lynch's 3rd Infantry forces are committed to massive "clear control and retain" (CCR) operations in his area. He was therefore somewhat short of troops to contribute to Phantom Strike activities. But he wasn't short on targets. His operations have produced a steady stream of al Qaeda and other insurgents fleeing further south for safety, mostly to an area on the Tigris known as the Samarrah jungle. Flushed from their safe havens, and tracked by intel, the insurgents were now vulnerable--in some cases, sitting ducks. Once the Phantom Strike guidance gave Lynch the order to attack, all he needed was a little ingenuity to come up with the right assets.

The 3rd

Infantry Division headquarters has a combat air brigade with more than a hundred helicopters. Marshalling other support services, and mustering a company of crack infantry freed up by the dramatically reduced tempo of operations in Anbar, Lynch put together an ad hoc unit for targeted strike operations, rather like a special forces contingent. In the first week of operations, this small force killed seven fighters and detained 64 suspects including 14 high-value targets, clearing nearly 120 structures in the process.

Such results are an early return on investment for the doctrines developed by Petraeus. The Counterinsurgency Field Manual, formulated under his command and released last December, chews through a lot of theory to arrive at one basic practical tenet: "Intelligence drives operations." The counterinsurgency manual specifies that being able to distinguish between insurgents and civilians is the key to victory.

The only way to do that is to provide protection for the population, enfranchise them, and enlist their help in identifying the insurgents. This creates a virtuous circle--security operations produce good intel which produces better security operations and in turn better intel. The CCR operations in and around Baghdad have produced a trove of actionable intelligence on al Qaeda--its movements, its senior leaders, and the sources and locations of its weapons, explosives, and bomb-making equipment. Phantom Strike has capitalized on that intel, further reducing al Qaeda's capacity to attack, which has improved security and increases the population's confidence in the Coalition and in the Iraqi Security Forces.

Of course, al Qaeda has not taken all of this lying down. All the good news coming out of Iraq recently is even more depressing for al Qaeda than it is for Harry Reid, if that is possible, and al Qaeda could smell that something like Phantom Strike might be coming. It had to pull off a spectacular attack--and it did. On August 14, four near-simultaneous car bombs destroyed whole rows of mud-brick houses in a pair of small farming villages in Yazidi, killing on the order of 400 Iraqis, and wounding many more--a horrifying toll even for today's Iraq.

But the site of the terror attack--in the far northwest of Iraq, 75 miles west of Mosul beyond the upper Tigris--was very interesting.

Lay of the land

To understand why, it is necessary to know something of the human geography of Iraq. Baghdad sits at the confluence of the Tigris River and its main tributary, the Diyala; these both flow from the north. The Euphrates River travels across Iraq from west to east, curving sharply south in the southwest suburbs of Baghdad. From there, the Euphrates and the Tigris converge gently, finally issuing, far to the south, into the Persian Gulf. Because Iraq's populated areas hug its great rivers, the human geography of the country lies along five corridors all connected to a central hub--Baghdad.

Outside those fertile corridors lies a scorching, lifeless desert--in many places no further than three miles from the nearest river. Because the desert has no water, it favors the army that can most easily maneuver over long distances with its own water. The Americans are thus masters of the desert in Iraq.

The insurgents, by contrast, don't do so well there. Even when they disguise themselves as Bedouins, their patterns of congregation and movement are easily detected by the scores of unmanned aerial vehicles constantly on the prowl overhead. And they can't move around readily, because the desert is largely impassable and in any case totally exposed, its few roads easily monitored. This means both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency center on Iraq's five river corridors.

Of these, the one where al Qaeda has suffered its clearest and most humiliating defeat is along the western Euphrates--the corridor stretching from Baghdad to Falluja, Ramadi, Haditha, and on to Al Qaim near the Syrian border. Not too long ago the heart of the Sunni insurgency, the entire corridor has fallen to coalition forces. Insurgents are finding that they can't get past the outer checkpoints far enough to approach any of the main cities, and even crossing from one side of the Euphrates to the other has become extremely difficult. Indeed the situation in Anbar has advanced to the point where the Marine Expeditionary Force has hit all of its major "intel targets" and had virtually none to nominate for the Phantom Strike campaign.

Moving counterclockwise, the corridors formed by the southern Euphrates and Tigris rivers, and the irrigated land between them, are mainly Iraq's Shiite heartland. But this twin corridor is dominated at its northern end by a belt of Sunni settlements, running along the outer perimeter of southern Baghdad. Saddam Hussein contrived this as a defense-in-depth of his precious capital. In this Baghdad belt, Lynch's division has been conducting a series of enormous CCR operations. Insurgents are fleeing south, but will soon start running into the Shiite wall, where (after years--indeed decades--of abusing the Shiites) they are likely to suffer a fate far worse than getting captured by coalition forces.

The next river corridor to the north is the Diyala valley, which leads from Baghdad to Baquba, Muqtadiya, and Mansuriyah, finally hitting the Kurdish region where the terrain becomes mountainous. Starting in mid-June with Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which focused on Baquba, this area has seen the heaviest fighting in Iraq since the start of the surge last February. It is also the site of the most complex and interesting of the Phantom Strike operations--Lightning Hammer--which focuses on the upper Diyala River valley from Baquba to the Kurdish region.

These four corridors, which only a year ago were wide open to the insurgents, have become increasingly nettlesome and dangerous for them since the start of the surge. The large areas shown on intel maps as "safe" for the insurgents only last year have been whittled down to small pockets here and there. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are increasingly desperate for safe havens from which to operate and lines of communication they can rely on.

Increasingly the insurgents' only option is the fifth corridor, the northern Tigris River valley stretching from Baghdad to Samarrah, Tikrit, and Mosul in the far north. This is why the location of al Qaeda's August 16 attack, 75 miles west of Mosul, was so telling. The car-bombs were likely assembled near Mosul because of the increased risk of trying to assemble them anywhere else in Iraq. And they were "delivered" locally because al Qaeda probably decided that the long journey down the Tikrit-Samarrah-Baghdad highway was too dangerous.

Al Qaeda understands how to manipulate western media well enough to know that they don't always need to attack in Baghdad. Indeed, the bombing dominated the headlines in the United States in the dramatic opening days of Operation Phantom Strike. But because of where it occurred, it told the coalition's planners that they have been effective, too.

Hammer and anvil

No current fighting shows the ingenuity of U.S. planners better than the Lightning Hammer operations in the Diyala River valley. The focus of Lightning Hammer at the moment is an elegant and dramatic attack on the suspected havens of the al Qaeda elements that were forced north out of Baquba earlier this summer.

The attack unfolded in two phases, the first of which was the rapid concentration of forces at several different points along the upper Diyala River valley. Two air assault squadrons, one from the the 25th Infantry Division out of Kirkuk, and another of the 82nd Airborne out of Tikrit, took off for the western side of the valley. Consisting of several dozen helicopters and some 240 soldiers, the two squadrons converged on five locations among the maze of canals and broken farmland that runs along the western edge of the valley. Their purpose was to establish a screen to block the most likely escape routes for the insurgents who were about to be flushed out of the valley.

Meanwhile, snatching helicopters from other units in the area, another air assault squadron was attached to a battalion of the armor-heavy 1st Cavalry Division at Forward Operating Base Normandy, in the northern Diyala River valley. The entire force then headed south out of the FOB, some 300 soldiers in a column of tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvees and helicopters. They pushed through Moqdadiyah and plunged towards the valley.

Simultaneously, another battalion of the 1st Cav pushed northeast from Baquba in a small operation dubbed Pericles (also part of Lightning Hammer and Phantom Strike) meant to attack specific intel targets within one of the few remaining pockets of safety for insurgents in the area. The operation had the secondary effect of putting a full battalion of heavy infantry in the field at the bottom of the Diyala River valley just above Baquba, to act as an anvil for the coming operation.

The two battalions wasted no time in launching the second phase of the battle, moving towards each other from opposite ends of the valley, in a simultaneous, massive, and rapid CCR operation. In six days, the two battalions flooded 28 specific targets--including whole villages--in a fast-moving combination of ground and air assaults.

Many al Qaeda fighters appear to have had just enough warning to make good their escape. But in so doing, they were forced to abandon their new "operations center" north of Baghdad--a command post, medical clinic, scores of rockets and mortars, dozens of IEDs, and even their personal weapons.

The prospects for these fighters are not good. The north and south end of the valleys are blocked, as is the valley's western border. The eastern escape from the valley is open for them, but that leads them into a bowl of farmland that is regularly scoured by patrols from FOB Caldwell, and is ringed to the northeast by the Kurdish "wall," to the south by the Shiite "wall," and to the southwest by coalition forces operating in strength between Baghdad and Baquba. Their only solution is to travel without their weapons and explosives--the things that make them dangerous.

Meanwhile, not beset by the force limitations that constrain General Lynch south of Baghdad, General Benjamin Mixon's Multi-National Division-North has orchestrated the Lightning Hammer attack as a CCR on the pattern developed by the Marines in Anbar. Close behind the American units came units of the Iraqi Security Forces, aiming to stay, and behind them, government officials and technical advisers meant to levee the population into the organized neighborhood watch programs that have proven fatal to al Qaeda in Anbar. Planners told me that the coalition forces were greeted warmly, and locals pledged to help, as the Sunni tribes have in Anbar.

The way forward

Al Qaeda in Iraq had many initial advantages--including a message that, though false, was superficially appealing. But they never achieved national scope. They have never looked to anyone like they could actually govern a country. They never gained the open support of any foreign army. And now, after giving the people of Iraq a taste of their brutal sadism--after executing children for playing with American-donated soccer balls, after chopping the fingers off young men for smoking, after murdering entire families in front of the youngest son, so he would live to tell the tale--Al Qaeda in Iraq is more widely hated than feared.

In the words of one soft-spoken coalition planner in Baghdad, "We are demolishing them." After four long years, the coalition has finally grasped the keys to victory. Al Qaeda has begun to lose the staging areas it needs for attacks in Baghdad. Just staying alive and avoiding capture is becoming a full-time occupation for them. As security envelops Baghdad, and calm spreads along the river corridors that extend out from the capital to the furthest reaches of the country, what is already clear to many people here in Iraq will become increasingly impossible for the rest of the world to ignore.

Because they have finally learned how to protect the people of Iraq--and help them to protect themselves--the United States and its allies are winning this war.

Mario Loyola, a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is embedded with the Marine Expeditionary Force in western Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 02:36 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

When did the allies cease occupying Germany?


That really is an interesting question ...

The Allied Control Council was not formally dissolved in 1948, but ceased all activity except the operations of the Four-Power Authorities, namely the management of the Spandau Prison where persons convicted at the Nuremberg Trials were held until 1987, and the Berlin Air Safety Center.

Besides that, allied laws were officially valid in (West-) Berlin until 1990 - which meant e.g. the carrying of handweapons could be punished with the death penality in the American sector.


The Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of
the Federal Republic of Germany
(May 5, 1955) is, however, generally (and legally) seen as end of the occupation in the three former West Zones. (A possible different event/dat could be the Signing of the Paris Agreements [23 October 1954])

Looks like I was wrong. The allied occupation of Germany did not officially end in 1952 like I thought--7 years after the war in Europe ended. Shocked It actually officially ended in 1955--10 years after the war in Europe ended.

The war in Iraq ended in 2003 with the removal of Saddam's government. The occupation of Iraq has so far lasted less than 5 years. I continue to hope the occupation of Iraq ends in 2010--about 7 years after the war in Iraq ended.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 02:43 pm
Quote:
In 1991 I witnessed the public uprising that was aroused in most Iraqi governorates by the persecuted people. At at that time I was a witness when people spontaneously said, "no to the tyrant". The Iraqi people said no and they knew the consequence of this no. They knew with whom they confront, Saddam Hussein, but in spite of that they stormed to the streets yelling no … no … no. This now cost them their lives. This historical situation will remain in generations' memories for a long, long time. We will remember when the bare arms with no weapon shook at the tyrant's throne.

Also we can't forget when Saddam was allowed to use his Helicopters to curb the rising and kill the innocents. Many here blame the United States for not stopping him.

I'm always wondering why those who rule Iraq today try to forget this no.

They forget an important proverb from an Arabian poet historically used to respond to occupation.

if the people want life destiny must respond.

Those people who were able to say no to Saddam they will be able too to say no to new tyrants.

strong>Yes, the government must understand that Iraqi people can't be patient forever. The day will come when Iraqi people will say no again.

They can't watch daily tragedy in all of Iraq, or the sectarian fight in which governmental parties are involved and foreign influence from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Washington.

The day will come when the Iraqis will create their reality by themselves.


source

Quote:
ABOUT THIS BLOG
"Inside Iraq" is a blog updated by Iraqi journalists working for McClatchy Newspapers. They are based in Baghdad and outlying provinces. These are firsthand accounts of their experiences. Their complete names are withheld for security purposes.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 02:45 pm
xingu wrote:
From Juan Cole.

Quote:
Churchill on When to Throw in the Towel on Iraq

Glenn Greenwald once remarked that "the highest achievement to which one can aspire in the neocon universe it to be compared to Winston Churchill."

So Churchill would advocate another surge and toughing it out forever in Iraq, right? Here is what he wrote in 1922, three years after Britain was awarded Iraq by the Versailles Treaty as a 'mandate' (i.e. colony):

Quote:
"Winston S. Churchill to David Lloyd George (Churchill papers: 17/27) 1 September 1922

I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions. The Turkish menace has got worse; Feisal is playing the fool, if not the knave; his incompetent Arab officials are disturbing some of the provinces and failing to collect the revenue; we overpaid £200,000 on last year's account which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus entailing a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never sanctioned by Parliament; a further deficit, in spite of large economies, is nearly certain this year on the civil expenses owing to the drop in the revenue. I have had to maintain British troops at Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel: this has upset the programme of reliefs and will certainly lead to further expenditure beyond the provision I cannot at this moment withdraw these troops without practically inviting the Turks to come in. The small column which is operating in the Rania district inside our border against the Turkish raiders and Kurdish sympathisers is a source of constant anxiety to me.

I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here or from India. There is scarcely a single newspaper - Tory, Liberal or Labour - which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. The enormous reductions which have been effected have brought no goodwill, and any alternative Government that might be formed here - Labour, Die-hard or Wee Free - would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. Owing to the difficulties with America, no progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources.

I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out. That at any rate would be a solution. Whether we should clear out of the country altogether or hold on to a portion of the Basra vilayet is a minor issue requiring a special study. It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum the King, and still more the Constituent Assembly, will implore us to remain. If they

Page 2

do, shall we not be obliged to remain? If we remain, shall we not be answerable for defending their frontier? How are we to do this if the Turk comes in? We have no force whatever that can resist any serious inroad. The War Office, of course, have played for safety throughout and are ready to say 'I told you so' at the first misfortune.

Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. The victories of the Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedan world. At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

From Martin Gilbert, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL IV, Companion Volume Part 3, London: Heinemann, 1977, pp. 1973-74.

From: This web site, winstonchurchill.org.

At the time Churchill wrote that letter (9/1/1922) no terrorist organization with members in Iraq had sponsored mass murder in Britain of British non-murderers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 08:30 pm
Are we really winning in Iraq?



The only US Army officer to be court-martialled over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal has been cleared of allowing the mistreatment of prisoners to continue under his watch. The defence team for Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan argued that he had no command authority over anyone at the prison. Colonel Jordan has been convicted on the lesser charge of disobeying an order not to discuss the investigation. Eleven soldiers have been found guilty of abusing Iraqi detainees at the prison in 2003 and 2004. - ABC Online, 29 Aug 2007

A military jury acquitted Marine Cpl. Marshall Magincalda of murder and kidnapping Wednesday, but found him guilty of conspiracy, larceny and housebreaking in the abduction and killing of an Iraqi man in April 2006. He is one of eight Camp Pendleton servicemen charged in the case. Magincalda, six other Marines and a Navy corpsman took an Iraqi man from his bed, dragged him to a roadside hole, bound his hands and feet and unleashed a storm of bullets into him. The defendants have confirmed the killing, but said a variety of reasons compelled them to do it. For instance, several contend that they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and were pressured by commanders to get tough with insurgents in Hamdaniya. - San Diego Union Tribune, 1 Aug 2007

An Army officer, Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr, was found guilty of negligent homicide late Saturday in the death of an Iraqi general at a detention camp, but was spared a conviction of murder that could have sent him to prison for life. A panel of six Army officers also convicted Welshofer of negligent dereliction of duty. He was acquitted of assault after six hours of deliberations. Welshofer was accused of putting a sleeping bag over the head of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, sitting on his chest and using his hand to cover the general's mouth while asking him questions in 2003. Welshofer faces a dishonorable discharge and up to three years in prison for negligent homicide and three months for negligent dereliction of duty. - International Herald Tribune, 22 Jan 2006

A military jury acquitted a Navy SEAL lieutenant of beating an Iraqi prisoner who later died. Jurors deliberated about three hours before finding Lt. Andrew K. Ledford, 32, not guilty of all charges. Ledford had faced as long as 11 years in military prison if he had been convicted of assault, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer and making false statements. Prosecutors said that Ledford failed as a leader on a November 2003 mission after he and his men captured a suspect in the bombing of Red Cross offices in Baghdad that killed 12. Members of Ledford's platoon testified that they punched the suspect, kicked him and struck him with rifle muzzles. Instead of ordering his men to halt the beating, Ledford accepted a subordinate's offer to punch the bound prisoner in the arm. - Washington Post, 28 May 2005
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 09:37 am
Are we really winning? You decide to quote a known source.

Quote:

Roundup of Daily Violence in Iraq - Thursday 2 August 2007



The daily Iraqi violence report is complied by McClatchy Newspapers Special Correspondents in Baghdad from police, military and medical reports. This is not a comprehensive list of all violence in Iraq , much of which goes unreported . It's posted without editing as transmitted to McClatchy's Washington Bureau.

Baghdad

- Around 7 am, mortars hit Rustamiyah camp in Ristumiya neighborhood ( south east Baghdad) . No casualties reported.

- Around 10 am, a roadside bomb targeted an American convoy at Baladiyat neighborhood. No casualties reported.

- After finishing his job , an administrator( general manger) of the ministry of industry by gunmen at Al-Sadoun street .

- Around 5 pm, a roadside bomb exploded near the college of administration and economics at Adhamiya neighborhood ( north Baghdad) killing one resident and injuring another.

- Police found 24 dead bodies in Baghdad in the following neighborhoods : 13 were found in west Baghdad ( Karkh bank) ; 4 in Bayaa , 4 in Amil , 2 in Kadhimiyah , 1 in Ma'amoun , 1 in Qadisiya and 1 in Khadraa. While 11 were found in east Baghdad ( Risafa bank) ; 4 in Sleikh , 2 in Karrada, 1 in Qahira . 1 in Ur , 1 in Kasra Wa'atash , 1 in Rashad , 1 in Al-Ameen.

Diyala

- Before noon, police found 14 dead bodies near poultry field at Hibhib of Khalis ( 18 km north Baquba). All of them were tortured before being shot on heads and chests.

- Around 11.30 am, a suicide car bomb targeted a police check point at Hashimiyat area ( 20 km north of Baquba) killing four policemen and injuring three others. Four people were also killed including the head of Hibhib communications department with some members of his family.

Sulaimaniyah

- After mid-night of Wednesday , police found two dead bodies of two students ( male and female ) at Bekhtiari neighborhood in downtown Sulaimaniyah city who were burned by unknown material for police . Police arrested one suspected at the scene while the people who told of the incident ran away.

Kirkuk

- Around 10.50 am , an explosion took place inside a shop for making military uniforms near Al-Mahakim Al-Askaria in downtown Kirkuk city injuring three people .

- Around 12.15 pm, a roadside bomb targeted a police car which was on the way of Baghdad - Kirkuk . No casualties reported but some damage o the vehicle.

- Wednesday night , a roadside targeted the convoy of the head of Mosul police at the wood area north of Mosul injuring four of his guards only .

- Around 10.45 am, mortars hit Al-Dour neighborhood in downtown Mosul city killing one resident and injuring four others.

- Around 3.30 pm, a roadside bomb targeted an army patrol near Awashra village on the way of Kirkuk-Biji ( west of Kirkuk) killing one soldier .

- Around 5 pm, opened fire on a police officer at Qadisiya neighborhood near power station department downtown Kirkuk injuring him with two other people who where at the scene .

Basra

- Around 7 am, mortars hit the headquarter of Hakimiya joint forces injuring one policeman with two cars damaged.

2007 McClatchy Newspapers


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/212/story/18639.html
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 09:41 am
PERSPECTIVE

Alas, all of us humans are imperfect in general and incompetent in particular. The focus now ought to be on those most imperfect and most incompetent.

While some of the US military's Abu Graib treatment of prisoners was despicable, that treatment doen't even come close to the horrors perpetrated by our enemies like al-Qaeda on their prisoners and masses of other people.

Also note that our enemies do not hold their people accountable for their horrible deeds, while the US military does hold its people accountable for not only their horrible deeds but also their despicable deeds.

So as imperfect and incompetent as we Americans obviously are, our behavior is far less imperfect and far less incompetent than the behavior of our enemies. We are progressing albeit terribly slowly progressing, while our enemies are regressing albeit terribly rapidly regressing.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 09:43 am
An interview with Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 09:56 am
Front-line lessons from the Iraq surge

By MICHAEL TOTTEN

Wednesday, August 29th 2007, 4:00 AM

Be Our Guest

While American politicians bicker among themselves from eight time zones away about whether the surge led by Gen. David Petraeus is working or not, I returned to Iraq to see for myself.

This trip - from which I returned this month - was my fourth reporting stint in the country since the conflict began. And this time, what I saw was overwhelming, undeniable and, like it or not, complicated: In some places, the surge is working remarkably well. In others, it is not. And the only way we will know for sure whether the tide can be turned is to continue the policy and wait.

I know that's not what many Americans and politicians want to hear, but it's the truth.

On my first stop, I embedded with the 82nd Airborne Division in the Graya'at area of northern Baghdad. There, the soldiers live and work in the city 24 hours a day. Their sector has been so thoroughly cleared of insurgents that they haven't suffered a single casualty this year. I walked the streets without fear and met dozens of genuinely friendly and supportive Iraqi civilians, who greeted the soldiers like friends.

The hitch is that Moqtada al-Sadr's radical Shia Mahdi Army has infiltrated the Iraqi Army unit that shares the outpost. American soldiers are training them while their comrades kill American soldiers elsewhere in the country.

Meanwhile, Shia militias are expanding and consolidating their rule in other parts of the capital. American soldiers patrol the Hurriyah neighborhood, for example, but many locals credit the Mahdi Army with being the real peacekeepers in the area.

Progress in Baghdad is real, but it is not, or not yet anyway, the kind of peace that can last.

It's worse in Mushadah just north of Baghdad, where I also went with American soldiers who are training Iraqi police forces - which have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. The area is so dangerous that the police refused to leave their station until an American woman, Capt. Maryanne Naro from upstate Fort Drum, showed up and shamed them by going out herself.

According to Naro, our convoys are hit with improvised explosive devices every day. I was ordered not to leave my vehicle for any reason unless something catastrophic happened to it.

Elsewhere in Iraq, though, progress is extraordinary and unambiguous. I spent a week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province, which just four months ago was the most violent place in Iraq. Al Qaeda had taken over and ruled the city through a massive murder and intimidation campaign. Even the Marine Corps, arguably the least defeatist institution in America, wrote off Ramadi as irretrievably lost last August.

Then, local tribal leaders and civilians joined the Americans - and helped purge the city of every last terrorist cell. Violence has dropped to near zero. I have photographs of Iraqis hugging American soldiers and of children greeting us with ecstatic joy, as though they had been rescued from Nazis. The Marines are even considering going on patrols without body armor.

What worked in Ramadi might not work in Baghdad. The Mahdi Army's relative moderation, compared with Al Qaeda's brutality, prevents it from being rejected by the entire society. But this much cannot be denied: There are powerful winds of change in Iraq, and not enough time has passed to determine how they will transform the country.

Want to know if the surge will succeed or fail? There is only one thing to do: Wait.

Totten (michaeltotten.com) is an independent journalist who lives in Portland, Ore.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 10:36 am
"The surge is working remarkably well..." because US military fatality is down. Doesn't matter that more Iraqis are getting killed and maimed, and more children are becoming orphans and starving. It also doesn't matter that the Iraqi government is totally broken. That's progress!
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 0.13 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 05:11:01