el Sadr is smart enough to wait for the "coalition forces" to wind down before reactivating the malitia. Why expose his men when the US has max troops in Iraq? At least 52 people were killed and 300 others injured, according to the director general of the health department in nearby Najaf who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Thank you for posting this link. I recommend that all read what Maliki had to say in this interview.
Here's but one of many possible informative excerpts from this interview that can clear up a great many misconceptions and/or fraudulent interpretations of Maliki's actions and thinking:
Quote:FADEL: Talk to us about the relationship between the U.S. and the Iraqi government right now. What will their role be in Iraq in the next year?
MALIKI: My opinion was included in the statements made by the "Quintuple" agreement. It is our wish to have a long-term agreement with the United States government that includes political, economic, security and cultural common interests. This should include U.S. support for Iraq to be relieved of Item 7 of the UN resolution and that Iraq, should be reinstated in its previous position, before 1990 and resolution 661.
FADEL: So do you believe it is helpful or harmful for the U.S. to remain as they work with some Sunni groups, that you criticized?
MALIKI: Everything is ruled by necessity. Now there is a need for them to stay on. When the security situation becomes stable the need will no longer be there. And this was included in Resolution 1723 1546 of the U.N. Security Council. We are moving within a legal cover from the United Nations that also gives us the right to dispense with their presence.
But, the security situation will never become 'stable' enough for us to leave. And if we did, the terrorists would roll right back in. They don't have a timeline...
We've discussed this problem before: we can't arm Iraq to the point where they can defend themselves, and we can't stay in perpetuity to defend them.
Cycloptichorn
ican's myopia sees only one thing: our continued support for our military staying in Iraq until we "succeed." The problem with that goal is there is no time-line or any potential for their government to become viable/operational. Why continue to sacrifice our men and women and our treasure for a goal that's impossible to delineate? We can use less dead and injured soldiers, and use the treasure at home to fix our infrastructure, schools, and medical care. Our priorities are all screwed up by being involved in Iraq! In less than half a year, we'll be involved in this Iraq war for six years - and counting. We're destroying our own country trying to meet Bush's (ican's) impossible goal.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican's myopia sees only one thing: our continued support for our military staying in Iraq until we "succeed." The problem with that goal is there is no time-line or any potential for their government to become viable/operational. Why continue to sacrifice our men and women and our treasure for a goal that's impossible to delineate? We can use less dead and injured soldiers, and use the treasure at home to fix our infrastructure, schools, and medical care. Our priorities are all screwed up by being involved in Iraq! In less than half a year, we'll be involved in this Iraq war for six years - and counting. We're destroying our own country trying to meet Bush's (ican's) impossible goal.
Our priorities are
not all screwed up by being involved in Iraq! In less than half a year, we'll be involved in this Iraq war for
five years, not six, but we must do what is necessary to win in Iraq however long it takes. We must succeed in Iraq in the interest of preserving our own security. That is, we must succeed in Iraq to protect our own lives and health and preserve our infrastructure, schools, and medical care from distruction.
I realize you do not believe that. I think your judgment about that is severely clouded by your hatred of Bush. Bush personally may or may not have invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons, but there was at least one right, necessary and sufficient reason for invading Iraq. That reason was to thwart al-Qaeda, after it emmigrated from Afghanistan to Iraq, from continuing to establish and grow its sanctuary in Iraq for training suicidal terrorists to attack America and other western nations.
ican, You probably haven't realized it yet, but Bush's tactic is always "we're making progress" and "we must support our troops." Those statements are meant to prolong this war by at least 2 - 10 years - not one.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You probably haven't realized it yet, but Bush's tactic is always "we're making progress" and "we must support our troops."
Of course I realize this! But what Bush says is irrelevant to how long our occupation of Iraq actually lasts. What is relevant is that we must succeed in Iraq whether or not we are currently succeeding in Iraq.
Those statements are meant to prolong this war by at least 2 - 10 years - not one.
I don't give a damn what Bush's statements are meant to do. Fact is I don't give a damn about what Bush actually says, thinks and does. I care only about what al-Qaeda actually says, thinks, and does.
By the way, we invaded Iraq in March 2003. We removed Saddam's government by April 2003 and then we began to occupy Iraq. It is now August 2007. April 2007 is 4 years after we began our occupation of Iraq. August 2007 is 4 months after April 2007. Therefore our occupation of Iraq is 4 years and 4 months old. We have 2 years and 8 months to go before the length of our occupation of Iraq equals 7 of the years of occupation of Germany and Japan after the end of WWII.
cicerone imposter wrote:el Sadr is smart enough to wait for the "coalition forces" to wind down before reactivating the malitia. Why expose his men when the US has max troops in Iraq? At least 52 people were killed and 300 others injured, according to the director general of the health department in nearby Najaf who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Yet you have been one of the people saying we are losing or that we cant win.
That means that the insurgents must be winning.
No military commander will stand his troops down when they are winning,nor will he "suspend activities".
That only allows the enemy time to regroup and rearm.
So,if he is standing his forces down,it cant be because he is winning.
So,if he isnt,and if we arent,then who is winning?
About time.
From Yahoo News:
Army to examine Iraq contracts
By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer
53 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Army will examine as many as 18,000 contracts awarded over the past four years to support U.S. forces in Iraq to determine how many are tainted by waste, fraud and abuse, service officials said Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Overall, the contracts are worth close to $3 billion and represent every transaction made between 2003 and 2007 by a contracting office in Kuwait, which the Army has identified as a significant trouble spot.
Among the contracts to be reviewed are awards to former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which has received billions of dollars since 2001 to be a major provider of food and shelter services to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democrats in Congress have claimed that KBR, formerly known as Kellogg, Brown and Root, benefited from ties to Vice President Dick Cheney, who once led Halliburton Co., the Houston-based oil services conglomerate, and congressional Republicans.
The officials did not specify which KBR contracts would be examined or their value.
The announcement, made by Army Secretary Pete Geren, comes as the number of criminal cases related to the acquisition of weapons and other supplies for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has grown to 76. So far, 20 military and civilian Army employees have been indicted on charges of contract fraud.
Mysteryman wrote:No military commander will stand his troops down when they are winning,nor will he "suspend activities".
That only allows the enemy time to regroup and rearm.
None of what you said applies to Sadr or his militias. That may apply to conventional warfare but it certainly does not apply to unconventional warfare. In case you failed to understand what's going on in Iraq we are fighting an unconventional war. Following conventional warfare rules is one of the reasons we're losing our ass. By losing I mean we have no control over anything we don't occupy.
In unconventional warfare you stand down when the enemy concentrates his forces in your territory. You keep a low profile and evaporate into your environment. They can't stay forever so when they leave you emerge again and do your business.
The big problem we have with the army now is poor leadership from the generals. General Petraeus seems to be the one exception.
If you want a better understanding of how our generals let us down I suggest you read this;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/magazine/26militaryt.html?em&ex=1188360000&en=fcf5b3241acbd31e&ei=5087%0A
and this
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
U.N. reports cholera outbreak in northern Iraq
(CNN) -- More than 2,000 Iraqis in the northern part of the country have contracted cholera, U.N. officials said Wednesday, citing local authorities.
A cholera outbreak in northern Iraq is thought to be the result of poor water quality.
The outbreak is thought to be the result of poor water quality, the U.N. officials said.
"Local authorities report that over 2,000 people have been affected so far by the outbreak, with five deaths reported and 500 patients admitted to hospital with severe diarrhea within the last two days alone," said the U.N. Children's Fund, or UNICEF.
Forty-seven cases have been confirmed as epidemic cholera, but the number is expected to grow, said UNICEF, which has rushed emergency aid to the affected area.
The outbreak has hit the Sulaimaniya province and the nearby Kirkuk region in northern Iraq.
"Although the outbreak is largely affecting adults, children are at extremely high risk," UNICEF said.
Cholera is a bacterial ailment that affects the intestinal tract. The disease is contracted by consuming contaminated water.
The outbreak is being attributed to "serious problems with water quality and sewage treatment" -- an assessment repeated by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq.
Only 30 percent of the population in Sulaimaniya has an adequate water supply, according to local reports, and "many people have been reduced to digging shallow wells outside their own homes," UNICEF said.
UNICEF is urging families to make sure children stay away from areas contaminated with raw sewage, wash their hands with soap and drink only water that has been purified or boiled.
UNICEF is providing material such as oral rehydration salts and safe water kits.
"If the epidemic spreads, there will be an urgent need for additional support," UNICEF said.
My only surprise is the fact that it's now coming to the fore. Iraq has been living with bad water, no electricity, and no medicine.
Another progress report for Bush.
White House says benchmarks set too high. Like the benchmark for being president of the US is "too high." ROFL
cicerone imposter wrote:White House says benchmarks set too high. Like the benchmark for being president of the US is "too high." ROFLThe administration said it agreed that Iraq had not reached the objectives.
General Petraeus will report in September both the successes and failures in Iraq. Even if he reports mostly failures, we must stay until we succeed. Failure to prevent Iraq from providing al-Qaeda sanctuary for training future suicidal mass murderers of American non-murderers cannot be tolerated.
This is very old news. The current dope is that the Sunni tribes and their leadership are cooperating with the Americans to get rid of al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda is losing in Iraq
The New York Times reports on a 17 page memo seized in Badhdad in mid-January that was allegedly written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian Al Qaeda operative who the Bush administration argued was the main conduit between the terrorist network and Iraq.
Glenn Reynolds links to the story and is concerned about media coverage. I'm more interested in the substantive implications.
This story makes me feel better about the security situation in Iraq than anything since Hussein's capture. Why? Because it's clear that the Al Qaeda-backed portion of the insurgency is running into serious difficulties:
[The memo] calls the Americans "the biggest cowards that God has created," but at the same time sees little chance that they will be forced from Iraq.
"So the solution, and only God knows, is that we need to bring the Shia into the battle," the writer of the document said. "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands" of Shiites....
The Iraqis themselves, the writer says, have not been receptive to taking holy warriors into their homes.
"Many Iraqis would honor you as a guest and give you refuge, for you are a Muslim brother," according to the document. "However, they will not allow you to make their home a base for operations or a safe house."
The writer contends that the American efforts to set up Iraqi security services have succeeded in depriving the insurgents of allies, particularly in a country where kinship networks are extensive.
"The problem is you end up having an army and police connected by lineage, blood and appearance," the document says. "When the Americans withdraw, and they have already started doing that, they get replaced by these agents who are intimately linked to the people of this region."
With some exasperation, the author writes: "We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases.
Iraqi's know that if AQ drops anchor there then we will never leave..and if we don't leave AQ will keep surging in. That's one thing that will motivate the Iraqi's to fight for true independence.
cicerone imposter wrote:This is very old news. The current dope is that the Sunni tribes and their leadership are cooperating with the Americans to get rid of al Qaeda.
...
Wow! Fantastic! You actually are acknowledging that we are making progress toward success in Iraq. In particular, you have acknowledged we are making progress toward enabling and encouraging the Iraqi people to stifle the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq now and in the future. Your post is greatly appreciated, not because it is new news, but because it is old news that you have finally acknowledged is true.
Surely if this persists for a year or so, the Iraq Parliament will ask the US military to leave. The US will have succeeded and most of our troops will return home real heros!
Brand X wrote:Iraqi's know that if AQ drops anchor there then we will never leave..and if we don't leave AQ will keep surging in. That's one thing that will motivate the Iraqi's to fight for true independence.
Amen, verily!
Well, actually it would be far more accurate to observe that when the Iraqis themselves are keeping AQ out of Iraq, AQ will look for sanctuary elsewhere.
if you believe that the major war against islam extremists will be decided in iraq , you might be interested in reading the article i posted in the thread :
PAKISTAN - WILL THE LID BLOW OFF SOON ?
the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE published it's feature article in the september issue under the heading of :
STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF PAKISTAN .
i'll give you a teaser , perhaps you'll want to read the complete article at the above link .
hbg
Quote:If there is an address, an exact location for the rift tearing Pakistan apart, and possibly the world, it is a spot 17 miles (28 kilometers) west of Islamabad called the Margalla Pass. Here, at a limestone cliff in the middle of Pakistan, the mountainous west meets the Indus River Valley, and two ancient, and very different, civilizations collide. To the southeast, unfurled to the horizon, lie the fertile lowlands of the Indian subcontinent, realm of peasant farmers on steamy plots of land, bright with colors and the splash of serendipitous gods. To the west and north stretch the harsh, windswept mountains of Central Asia, land of herders and raiders on horseback, where man fears one God and takes no prisoners.
This is also where two conflicting forms of Islam meet: the relatively relaxed and tolerant Islam of India, versus the rigid fundamentalism of the Afghan frontier. Beneath the surface of Pakistan, these opposing forces grind against each other like two vast geologic plates, rattling teacups from Lahore to London, Karachi to New York. The clash between moderates and extremists in Pakistan today reflects this rift, and can be seen as a microcosm for a larger struggle among Muslims everywhere. So when the earth trembles in Pakistan, the world pays attention.
