THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

More numbers mean nothing, if the forces as a whole are sliding backwards from readiness levels, Petraeus' own numbers state.

...

Cycloptichorn

...

Your source is?

Naturally, my post provided the source: (Boston Globe).

Here's the article, for your perusal:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/16/petraeus_war_plan_is_doubted/

Cycloptichorn

More numbers mean a lot. There are now more Iraqis available to train to levels of readiness where they will eventually not require a US presence.

From the link that you provided:

Quote:

By Bryan Bender and Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | September 16, 2007
WASHINGTON - Despite his conclusion that Iraqi units can replace US combat troops who will return home by the end of the year, statistics produced by General David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, indicate that there are now fewer Iraqi units that can operate independently than there were at the beginning of the year.

…

Keane now believes that the risk of simultaneously drawing down US troop levels and handing more missions to the Iraqis is acceptable because US and Iraqi commanders understand the dangers of a security vacuum and are preparing to maintain a [US] presence in the most restive areas.

...

I'm not sure I understand your position. You are saying, the fact that there are less 'ready' units then there were last year is a good thing?

Cycloptichorn

...

Murphy's Law took over this war before day one.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

More numbers mean nothing, if the forces as a whole are sliding backwards from readiness levels, Petraeus' own numbers state.

...

Cycloptichorn

...

Your source is?

Naturally, my post provided the source: (Boston Globe).

Here's the article, for your perusal:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/16/petraeus_war_plan_is_doubted/

Cycloptichorn

More numbers mean a lot. There are now more Iraqis available to train to levels of readiness where they will eventually not require a US presence.

From the link that you provided:

Quote:

By Bryan Bender and Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | September 16, 2007
WASHINGTON - Despite his conclusion that Iraqi units can replace US combat troops who will return home by the end of the year, statistics produced by General David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, indicate that there are now fewer Iraqi units that can operate independently than there were at the beginning of the year.

…

Keane now believes that the risk of simultaneously drawing down US troop levels and handing more missions to the Iraqis is acceptable because US and Iraqi commanders understand the dangers of a security vacuum and are preparing to maintain a [US] presence in the most restive areas.

...

I'm not sure I understand your position. You are saying, the fact that there are less 'ready' units then there were last year is a good thing?

Cycloptichorn

My position is:
(1) More numbers mean a lot. There are now more Iraqis available to train to those levels of readiness where they will not require a US presence.

(2) The fact that there are now fewer Iraqi units that can operate independently than there were at the beginning of the year is not a good thing, but it is a tolerable thing, that now that the surge is fully operational, can be corrected in a timely fashion.


I'm guessing that Petraeus himself decided those Iraqi units were not currently adequately trained to operate independently. That's a good thing if true, because it would additionally demonstrate Petraeus's commitment to succeeding in Iraq.

Remember my view is the USA must succeed in Iraq. That can only be accomplished by timely recognition and correction of mistakes and limitations that have to be corrected to succeed, and by not hiding those mistakes and limitations to avoid criticism by AINOs.

Frankly, to hell with what the AINOs think--they make it clear they seek US failure in Iraq.

...

I'm prepared to change my opinion as to the outcome of this mess, when presented with data showing there is a reason to do so.

...

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

I'm prepared to change my opinion as to the outcome of this mess, when presented with data showing there is a reason to do so.

...

Cycloptichorn

Good!

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

I'm prepared to change my opinion as to the outcome of this mess, when presented with data showing there is a reason to do so.

...

Cycloptichorn

Good!

So you refuse to acknowledge that the training of the IA is moving the wrong direction, and this is maybe a sign that you should change your assessment of things?

...
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

I'm prepared to change my opinion as to the outcome of this mess, when presented with data showing there is a reason to do so.

...

Cycloptichorn

Good!

So you refuse to acknowledge that the training of the IA is moving the wrong direction, and this is maybe a sign that you should change your assessment of things?

...
Cycloptichorn

I think the USA must succeed in Iraq.

I do not think the training of the Iraq police and military cannot succeed.

I know that the training of the Iraq police and military is proceeding much slower than I want.

I've repeatedly posted my reasons for thinking what I think.

With regard to what I want, trust me; I know what I want.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

I'm prepared to change my opinion as to the outcome of this mess, when presented with data showing there is a reason to do so.

...

Cycloptichorn

Good!

So you refuse to acknowledge that the training of the IA is moving the wrong direction, and this is maybe a sign that you should change your assessment of things?

...
Cycloptichorn

I think the USA must succeed in Iraq.

I do not think the training of the Iraq police and military cannot succeed.

I know that the training of the Iraq police and military is proceeding much slower than I want.

I've repeatedly posted my reasons for thinking what I think.

With regard to what I want, trust me; I know what I want.

Slower is one thing, but backwards? C'mon.

Cycloptichorn

The government, military and police are infiltrated by the Sunni militia, and people like Bush, Petraeus and ican thinks we're making "progress."

This in the middle of a civil war; what do they think will be the outcome for the long-term?

Okay, new topic, the Blackwater thing.

It seems unlikely that the US will simply cancel the contract of this private army, utilized by many of the top brass and State dept. Isn't it interesting, that our politicians are protected by private armies and not the US army?

Blackwater has a long history of shooting first and asking questions later; now, the Iraqis seem serious about getting rid of them. This poses a real conundrum for the US. At first, when it was the Interior Ministry calling for their removal, it seemed this could be more easily contained; now, various gov't ministers for the ruling Maliki gov't are demanding that they be removed from the country and also tried in an Iraqi court for the civilian deaths they caused - something that we've plainly said won't happen.

So, we've entered a test period. Is the Iraqi gov't a real, sovereign force who has control over their own country, or not? It would seem that they will be shown to be impotent and useless, as they can't force us to remove our trigger-happy mercenaries and they can't stand on their own without us. So I really think this will be a defining test for the Iraqis; will their determination make a difference? If not, will their legitimacy be shown to be hollow? I think it will be the second, and it won't bode well for the Maliki gov't.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okay, new topic, the Blackwater thing.

It seems unlikely that the US will simply cancel the contract of this private army, utilized by many of the top brass and State dept. Isn't it interesting, that our politicians are protected by private armies and not the US army?

Blackwater has a long history of shooting first and asking questions later; now, the Iraqis seem serious about getting rid of them. This poses a real conundrum for the US. At first, when it was the Interior Ministry calling for their removal, it seemed this could be more easily contained; now, various gov't ministers for the ruling Maliki gov't are demanding that they be removed from the country and also tried in an Iraqi court for the civilian deaths they caused - something that we've plainly said won't happen.

So, we've entered a test period. Is the Iraqi gov't a real, sovereign force who has control over their own country, or not? It would seem that they will be shown to be impotent and useless, as they can't force us to remove our trigger-happy mercenaries and they can't stand on their own without us. So I really think this will be a defining test for the Iraqis; will their determination make a difference? If not, will their legitimacy be shown to be hollow? I think it will be the second, and it won't bode well for the Maliki gov't.

Cycloptichorn

Whether the Iraq government's decisions are right or wrong, the USA must not interfere with their implementation. The most the USA should do about those decisions is express its opinions.

But few believe much will happen to them - or rival private security companies - as they are so ingrained into the U.S. mission in Iraq that it's difficult to imagine operating without them. The war effort in Iraq relies heavily on private security companies; at least 28 U.S. firms have received government contracts to work in the region, worth a total of at least $4 billion. Blackwater, based in North Carolina, is one of the largest U.S. firms, along with Triple Canopy and DynCorp (Charts).

The U.S. State Department uses Blackwater for almost all of its security needs: from protecting Ambassador Ryan Crocker to visiting congressional delegations to most Embassy officials out in the field. They fly the helicopters, they provide the armored vehicles and, in many cases, end up dictating where American diplomats can and can't go outside the Green Zone.

U.S. Embassy officials wouldn't comment on how the Iraqi government's decision might affect their work with Blackwater. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki on Monday night to express regret over the shootings and promised a full investigation.

Maliki, for his part, has said the Blackwater employees will be prosecuted. That's unlikely. Private security companies like Blackwater fall in a legal gray area. Under a law signed in 2003 by Paul Bremer, then the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, contractors have blanket immunity from local jurisdiction. So far no American security contractor has been prosecuted in the United States or Iraq.

One danger for American contractors is if the Iraqi officials actually repeal that law, CPA Order 17. But even if that happens, the State Department has long held that Blackwater doesn't need a license form the Iraqi government to protect American officials since its contract is directly with the U.S. authorities. "They're the Embassy's private army," says another rival contractor.

Sinking in the Polls
By Karen P. Hughes
Washington Post
Monday, September 17, 2007; Page A19

The video reappearance of Osama bin Laden is a reminder that extremists with murderous methods continue to threaten innocent people worldwide. His emergence after three years of hiding also provides an opportunity to take stock of how differently the world now views the terrorist leader -- and that view is turning darker than bin Laden's newly dyed beard.

People in America and many other Western nations have expressed strong disapproval of bin Laden and al-Qaeda since the Sept. 11 attacks. What's new is the dramatic decline in his standing in majority-Muslim countries. Polls in the two nations that have suffered some of the worst of al-Qaeda's violence -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- show that more than 90 percent of those populations have unfavorable views of al-Qaeda and of bin Laden himself.

Pollsters say that it is difficult to find 90 percent agreement that apple pie is American -- yet polling in Turkey two years ago found that 90 percent of citizens believe the al-Qaeda bombings in London, Istanbul, Madrid and Egypt were unjust and unfair; 86 percent thought that there was no excuse for condoning the Sept. 11 attacks; and 75 percent said bin Laden does not represent Muslims.

Support for terrorist tactics has fallen in seven of the eight predominantly Muslim countries polled as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project since 2002; in most cases, those declines have been dramatic. Five years ago in Lebanon, 74 percent of the population thought suicide bombing could sometimes be justified. Today it's 34 percent -- still too high, but a stark reversal. Similar declines in support have occurred in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and Jordan.

Perhaps most significant, Muslim populations are increasingly rejecting bin Laden's attempts to pervert their faith. WorldPublicOpinion.org found in April that large majorities in Egypt (88 percent), Indonesia (65 percent) and Morocco (66 percent) agree: "Groups that use violence against civilians, such as Al Qaida, are violating the principles of Islam. Islam opposes the use of such violence." These shifts in attitude are beginning to show up in actions. Sunni leaders in Iraq's Anbar province are working with coalition forces against al-Qaeda because, as one local leader said to journalists, all the terrorists bring is chaos -- "killing people, stealing goats, everything, you name it." After recent terrorist attacks in Algeria, protesters shouted: "Terrorists are not Muslims" and "no to terrorism; don't touch my Algeria."

While it is good that many Muslims are recognizing that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda are a common threat, many polls show that much remains to be done to improve foreign perceptions of the United States. The drop in support for violent extremists presents an opportunity to expand our efforts to nurture common interests with people overseas and work with them to counter al-Qaeda's attempts to radicalize young people.

Al-Qaeda's growing Internet propaganda activities glorify violence and seek to exploit local grievances, from political oppression to a lack of economic opportunities. In contrast, America's public diplomacy programs are engaging young people constructively, through English-language teaching, educational exchanges, music and sports diplomacy.

This summer, we partnered with local governments in predominantly Muslim countries to host programs to teach young people English and leadership and citizenship skills. It was the first time many of these youths had met an American. Evaluations show they left with much more positive views of our country.

This year, we will teach English to thousands of young people in more than 40 majority-Muslim countries. I met with a group in Morocco, in the same neighborhood that produced the Casablanca suicide bombers of 2003. When I asked one young man what difference learning English had made in his life, he told me: "I have a job, and none of my friends do." That young man also has hope -- a reason to live rather than to kill himself and others in a suicide bombing.

Thanks to strong bipartisan support from Congress, we are expanding our education and exchange programs as well as bringing "key influencers" such as Muslim journalists and clerics here to experience America for themselves.

These kinds of programs are invaluable in challenging stereotypes and countering the misinformation that radical extremists put out to drive a wedge between our cultures and countries.

Osama bin Laden's recent tape was a reminder that al-Qaeda offers only destruction and death. Al-Qaeda terrorists murder those who don't agree with them -- including Muslims. Their attacks on mosques, shrines and even wedding celebrations confirm that they don't care about innocent Muslims. As one woman in Algeria put it, "They are criminals who want to sabotage the country." That's a message bin Laden's words don't convey, but his actions do. Six years after Sept. 11, good and decent people of many faiths and cultures are increasingly rejecting his brutal methods.

The writer is undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs.