THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Ican: an in-depth look at how Petraeus (or someone in the Armed forces who prepared the data) massaged the data to make the surge look more successful:

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/09/fuzzy-numbers-a.html

Cycloptichorn

The Maliki government is held together by a thread; it's only a matter of time when it breaks.

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Maliki government is held together by a thread; it's only a matter of time when it breaks.

Or, it's only a matter of time when it becomes a titanium-steel cable.

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Maliki government is held together by a thread; it's only a matter of time when it breaks.

Or, it's only a matter of time when it becomes a titanium-steel cable.

Threads have a far greater tendency to break then they do to turn into cables.

If you would just put 'We MUST succeed in Iraq' in your sig line, you wouldn't have to retype it every time.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Maliki government is held together by a thread; it's only a matter of time when it breaks.

Or, it's only a matter of time when it becomes a titanium-steel cable.

Threads have a far greater tendency to break then they do to turn into cables.

If you would just put 'We MUST succeed in Iraq' in your sig line, you wouldn't have to retype it every time.

Cycloptichorn

I bet it's already a titantium steel wire. Takes time to weave a cable out of wire.

I like retyping it everytime.

We must succeed in Iraq.

WASHINGTON - The United States on Tuesday suspended all land travel by U.S. diplomats and other civilian officials throughout Iraq, except in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. The move follows a weekend incident involving private security guards protecting a diplomatic convoy in which a number of Iraqi civilians were killed.

In a notice sent to Americans in Iraq, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said it had taken the step to review the security of its personnel and possible increased threats to those leaving the Green Zone while accompanied by such security details.

"In light of a serious security incident involving a U.S. embassy protective detail in the Mansour District of Baghdad, the embassy has suspended official U.S. government civilian ground movements outside the International Zone (IZ) and throughout Iraq," the notice said.

"This suspension is in effect in order to assess mission security and procedures, as well as a possible increased threat to personnel traveling with security details outside the International Zone," said the notice, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press by the State Department in Washington.

The notice did not say when the suspension would expire.

The move came amid uncertainty over the status of the security contractor, Blackwater USA, which was involved in Sunday's incident in which at least 11 people died and provides the bulk of security for U.S. diplomats in Iraq.

Iraqi officials have said they revoked the operating license of the firm but both the company and the State Department say they have received no formal notice of such a step.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday that officials from the agency's Bureau of Diplomatic Security are cooperating with Iraqi authorities in investigating the incident, which has fueled popular Iraqi anger at the private security firms often perceived as operating outside the law.

...

What evidence have you seen that, specifically, the Iraqi gov't has any sort of qualities akin to a steel wire? That is to say, what accomplishments or achievements or progress, specifically, have they made, which leads you to this assessment?

My evidence is Maliki's persistence in trying to evolve a unified government rather than a confederation of independent provinces. Admittedly he has made what appears to me to be little progress, but I anticipate more rapid progress on his part once the surge succeeds in securing the Iraq people. Yes, I understand you do not think the surge will succeed. I bet it will. We shall see!

I think a more realistic look would show you that your assessment is built more on hope than reality. I understand that you think that we must win in Iraq, and therefore you have little choice but to support the gov't there. But, if it wasn't the US in Iraq, but France instead - would you be so supportive and optimistic about the Maliki gov't? I highly doubt it.

I think a more realistic look on your part would show success is certain once enough of us become convinced that failure (i.e., failure to succeed in Iraq) is far and away more intolerable than is success (i.e., succeeding in Iraq).

France has since WWI shown itself to be incompetent in furthering freedom. I think I would support Australia or New Zealand (or one or more of the eastern european nations) and be optimistic about the Maliki gov't. However, to succeed they would have to depend on our helping them with our resources.

Cycloptichorn

It's puzzling!

On the one hand there is a group of people, call 'em the A group, trying to persuade us that we must leave Iraq before we succeed there. On the otherhand there is a group of people, call 'em the B group, trying to persuade us we must not leave Iraq until we succeed there.

The A group emphasizes our failures in Iraq. The B group emphasizes our successes in Iraq. The A group continually alleges that the consequences of remaining in Iraq until we succeed are more intolerable than are the consequences of leaving Iraq before we succeed. The B group continually alleges that the consequences of leaving Iraq before we succeed there are more intolerable than are the consequences of leaving Iraq only after we succeed there.

The A group contends we can never succeed in Iraq, while the B group contends that cannot be known until we try our best to suceed in Iraq and actually fail to succeed.

The B group frequently discusses the consequences of both leaving before and staying until we succeed there, and continues to be bewildered about why the A group wants us to leave Iraq before we succeed there.

It seems to me that the best way for the A group to convince the B group to leave Iraq before we succeed in Iraq, is for them to focus on why they think the consequences of us leaving Iraq before we succeed in Iraq are more tolerable than staying until we succeed. However, the A group rarely discusses even what they think are the consequences of our leaving Iraq before we succeed there.

ican711nm wrote:

It's puzzling!

On the one hand there is a group of people, call 'em the A group, trying to persuade us that we must leave Iraq before we succeed there. On the otherhand there is a group of people, call 'em the B group, trying to persuade us we must not leave Iraq until we succeed there.

The A group emphasizes our failures in Iraq. The B group emphasizes our successes in Iraq. The A group continually alleges that the consequences of remaining in Iraq until we succeed are more intolerable than are the consequences of leaving Iraq before we succeed. The B group continually alleges that the consequences of leaving Iraq before we succeed there are more intolerable than are the consequences of leaving Iraq only after we succeed there.

The A group contends we can never succeed in Iraq, while the B group contends that cannot be known until we try our best to suceed in Iraq and actually fail to succeed.

The B group frequently discusses the consequences of both leaving before and staying until we succeed there, and continues to be bewildered about why the A group wants us to leave Iraq before we succeed there.

It seems to me that the best way for the A group to convince the B group to leave Iraq before we succeed in Iraq, is for them to focus on why they think the consequences of us leaving Iraq before we succeed in Iraq are more tolerable than staying until we succeed. However, the A group rarely discusses even what they think are the consequences of our leaving Iraq before we succeed there.

I don't think that much of this is accurate.

The 'A' group (hereafter referred to as 'we') don't believe that we can't win in Iraq, but that we won't win in Iraq. There are a variety of things that we could do to win the war in Iraq; none of them are going to be done, so, I do not perceive success coming from this endeavor.

We allege that our actions in Iraq are not only not achieving our overall goal (safety for the US), they are actively harming our progress towards achieving that goal AND harming our ability to progress towards that goal later. There is significant evidence that AQ has profited from the war in Iraq, in terms of both money, ability to attack US troops, fostering recruitment, and actively inflaming moderate and mainstream Muslims against the US and the cause of freedom.

We do not believe that the result of leaving Iraq before completely securing the country against all incursions from Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations is intolerable. We believe the US is strong, that our defenses are strong - and that they can be made stronger with more work and attention to them. We have seen no persuasive evidence that AQ has the ability to harm the United States in any long-term, meaningful way. We believe that threats should be treated as such; but they should not be the driver of our country's foreign policy.

We believe the consequences of our leaving are probable war in the region. Iran will increase its' power by siding with the majority Shiites in Iraq, and the Sunnis will probably turn to Saudi Arabia in order to get support to fight them. We believe that there is no way to stop this, short of our staying there in perpetuity - a situation which not only continues to cost us money and lives, but serves to further inflame the passions of once-moderate muslims against us; the longer we stay, the more credence the radical clerics receive when they whisper that we are there for good.

We believe that short-sighted, arrogant planning on the part of those who pushed and desired and made this war happen is to blame for this scenario, one in which there no longer are any good options. IWe are unwilling to pay any more money to support the Iraqi gov't. We are not willing to pay human lives in order to fuel the incipient battle between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

We don't believe that those who lied, lied, and lied again when it came to the war, failed to find the WMD they promised us were there, those who failed to plan conservatively for the post-war period, failed to use enough troops to realistically secure the situation, failed to adjust their plans then it became obvious that these things were true - we don't believe these people's assurances that 'success is right around the corner.'

...

We've been having this conversation for about 3 years, Ican. You and I both know that success in Iraq, to rebuild them into a nation which can survive incursions by terrorists or by other countries AND can handle their own internal sectarian tensions, is a 10, 20, 30 year job. That whole time we will garner additional hate from the muslims who perceive us as an occupying force in their lands - and they have a right to believe this, as that is exactly what we are doing, even if it is for good reasons. All that work - and what's to stop the majority Shiites, who for all intents and purposes will be deciding the future of that country, from allying with our enemies? Are we to build up their army, to be used against us? Are we to arm our enemies?

NONE of this seems like a wise course of action. The trillions of dollars that this enterprise will cost could do so much for us and others around the world. We are confident that the US will deal with problems as they arise, that we don't need to be afraid all the time.

We are not afraid of terrorism.

We are not afraid of terrorism.

We are afraid of those who are afraid of terrorism; they are the danger to our society.

As I have said before: give me liberty, or give me death! I would rather be dead then live in fear, or have my rights taken away, b/c you are scared.

Cycloptichorn

Iraqi leader urges U.S. to cancel Blackwater contract

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called on the U.S. government Wednesday to end its contract with Blackwater USA after a lethal shooting incident this week.

Meanwhile, U.S. diplomats in Baghdad are banned from leaving the Iraqi capital's Green Zone for a second day after the U.S. government halted all civilian ground movements outside the heavily fortified section.

Iraqi officials have expressed outrage at eyewitness accounts that Blackwater contractors "initiated random and indiscriminate shooting at civilians" Sunday in Baghdad's Mansour area, according to an Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf.

The ministry said Wednesday that at least 10 Iraqis were killed and 10 wounded -- all civilians except for a traffic policeman killed while rushing to the aid of a family caught in the crossfire.

U.S. officials have not disclosed any casualty figures. The Blackwater USA contractors were guarding a State Department convoy.

Blackwater has denied the Iraqi government's account of events, saying its contractors "acted lawfully and appropriately in response to a hostile attack."

The North Carolina-based company added that "the 'civilians' reportedly fired upon by Blackwater professionals were in fact armed enemies, and Blackwater personnel returned defensive fire."

Blackwater employees are part of an estimated 25,000-strong corps of private military contractors who protect diplomats, reconstruction workers and government officials in Iraq.

"We see the security firms ... doing whatever they want in the streets. They beat citizens and scorn them," one Baghdad resident, Halim Mashkoor, told AP Television News.

"If such a thing happened in America or Britain, would the American president or American citizens accept it?" VideoWatch why Iraq's Interior Ministry wants to suspend Blackwater's license »

The State Department and U.S. Embassy officials refuse to offer any details on the incident, citing the ongoing investigation. But an initial State Department report said the convoy came under fire from eight to 10 people "from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms."

The guards held off the attackers and called for backup, at one point finding their escape route blocked by an Iraqi quick-reaction force that pointed heavy machine guns at one vehicle in the convoy. A U.S. Army force, backed by air cover, arrived about half an hour later to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone, the report said.

At a Wednesday news conference, an Iraqi military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Qassim Atta, blamed Blackwater for "a number of violations" over the past month, citing reported incidents in two squares in central Baghdad.

On Monday, the Interior Ministry announced it was suspending Blackwater's license and halting the security contractor's operations in Iraq.

On Tuesday, the State Department issued a warden's message advising that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad "has suspended official U.S. government civilian ground movements outside the International Zone" -- the formal name of the central Baghdad district that houses the embassy -- "and throughout Iraq."

Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said Wednesday it is not clear if the ban on civilian ground movement applies to the entire country or just Baghdad.

En route to the Middle East for talks with Palestinian and Israeli leaders, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described her Monday conversation with al-Maliki regarding the Blackwater episode as "cordial."

Rice said she expressed Washington's regret over the loss of life and "committed to him that we were as interested as the Iraqi government in having a full investigation, a transparent investigation."

She also said the United States was working with the Iraqi government to make sure nothing such as this happens again.

A U.S. congressional report estimates that 200 private security guards have been killed in Iraq.

In one of the more highly publicized incidents, four American Blackwater contractors were mutilated and killed in March 2004 in Falluja, west of Baghdad. Two of their bodies were hanged from a bridge over the Euphrates River, setting off two battles to reclaim the city from insurgents.

Several major newspapers in the Arab world tackled the Blackwater incident, with some treating it as a major story with accompanying comment pieces.

The London-based, pan-Arab daily papers, like Al Quds Al Arabi and Al Hayat, published the story on their front pages. They focused on Rice's phone call with the Iraqi prime minister and her "personal apology" -- not an official one -- for the incident.

Al Hayat wrote: "In an attempt to apologize for the Iraqis, Condoleezza Rice called the Iraqi minister and apologized personally for the killing of 11 Iraqis, and promised to take action and stop such things."

Al Quds Al Arabi wrote: "A lot of analysts believe that the Iraqi government cannot stop issuing licenses to these companies as they provide security to diplomatic delegations, and a lot of Iraqi officials."

Al Khaleej, based in the United Arab Emirates, accused those behind the incidents of being members of the Israeli secret service, Mossad.

CNN's Caroline Faraj, Jomana Karadsheh and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/19/blackwater.iraq/index.html

As I have said before: give me liberty, or give me death! I would rather be dead then live in fear, or have my rights taken away, b/c you are scared.

Our brethren are already in the field. Why stay we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty or give me death!

ican, Nobody can succeed in Iraq except by the Iraqis themselves. Military success is only one-half the equation for success. The other very important half is the Iraqis to create and government that satisfies the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. That's not about to happen - according to their history and current warfare.

With every terrorist attack one against the other only exacerbates their problems; that will not stop any time soon. Not even in 30 years. We're looking at generations - not decades.

Cyclo, yesterday I characterized both our arguments as indicating our fears. The only difference between us on that is, I don't fear those who are not afraid of terroism, but you said you do fear those who are afraid of terrorism.

You then are also afraid of me!

More importantly, you fear we won't succeed in Iraq because of the way we are currently trying to succeed in Iraq. I think your fears are justifiable.

You also fear the likelihood that our staying in Iraq will cause increasing numbers of Muslims to permanently hate us. But I'm confident that such hatred no matter how intense it becomes, will be short lived and will subsequently rapidly dissipate when we succeed in Iraq.

On the otherhand, I fear the consequences of our leaving Iraq in 2009 before we succeed, more than I fear the consequences of our not succeeding in Iraq in less than 30 years. While I fear the current administration will not succeed with their way of doing things, I bet subsequent administrations will succeed in less than 30 years using more rational ways of doing things.

Also I fear we at home cannot succeed in protecting ourselves against illegal al-Qaeda immigrants, if we fail to do three things:
(1) Fence our borders with Mexico and Canada inorder to limit illegal immigration;
(2) Monitor without warrants all communications between people in America and people outside America, and between people all of whom are outside America;
(3) Suspend the Privilege of Habeas Corpus for captured terrorists, held in America or in its territories, in accord with Article I, Section 9 of the USA Constitution.

Furthermore I fear that we will not do any of those three things.

Consequently, I'm confident that the best alternative we have for protecting ourselves against al-Qaeda is to remain in Iraq until we succeed there.

You wrote:

Quote:

As I have said before: give me liberty, or give me death! I would rather be dead then live in fear, or have my rights taken away, b/c you are scared.

You didn't mention the fact that Patrick Henry expressed that phrase, "Give me liberty or give me death," in the spring of 1775 as part of his advocacy that Americans make war against those who are attempting to deprive Americans of their liberty. He did not say that should only be done strictly within our own borders. In deed it wasn't done strictly within our borders.

Here are the last sentences of Henry's speech:

Quote:

Our brethren are already in the field. Why stay we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty or give me death!