THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ehBeth, Sounds like good news, finally! Let's hope they continue to compromise, and meet some political goals for their own security and interests.

mr. maliki claims "success" in basra since the mehdi army was ordered to stay off the streets in a deal with the government .
they have not surrenderd but temporarily withdrawn - with their forces and weapons intact . the question is : when will they strike again ?
it had earlier been reported that about 10% of iraqi security forces had left their units when the fighting in basra started and gone back to their villages of origin .
parhaps mr. malaki can strike a deal with the mehdi army and other opponents - for the good for the iraqi people .
it certainly does not look like a winning situation for the "so-called" iraqi government .
when eventually a peace deal is brokered between the warring factions in iraq , will the iranian government have to play a role in it ?
there certainly have been many visits back-and-forth between irqi and iranian officials .
perhaps iran will become a "stabilizing" force ?
hbg




source :
IRAQ

hbg, I suspect that not only Iran but some other neighboring countries will be interested in trying to influence the politics in Iraq.

c.i. wrote :



i wonder if the other muslim countries will wait for the U.S. to leave before becoming involved ?

btw. i've wondered for some time why other middle-east and asian countries show little eagerness to become involved in the "war" in iraq and afghanistan ? they probably know something we don't .
i'm particularly surprised - well , not really- than the saudis show no interest to become involved . they have enough money "to buy" an army of fighters and send them to afghanistan in the fight "to liberate" the afghan people .
perhaps they might be concerned that their own people might ask "to be liberated" :wink: .
hbg

hbg, The Saudis have their own problems; the people aren't enamored with their king because of their support for the US during the first Gulf War, and the Sunnis in Saudi have connections to the Sunnis in Iraq.

c.i. : of course , i know all that , but aren't the saudis america's "friends" ?
i thought that "friends" are there for each other in the time of need ?

a lot of noise is being generated about the NATO members not pulling their weight ... no one else seems to be "invited" to join the battlle against the "insurgents" in afghanistan .
imo the middle-east and asian countries are a lot closer to the hotspots and perhaps in more danger than north-america and even europe .
i'm sure i have no understanding of "real politik ' .

i seem to recall a lot of "handholding" , wearing of "green sashes" , accepting a sword from the saudis ... ... is that all it is ? :wink:
sure hope it's not just all P.R. :wink:
just wondering ... ...
hbg

(i really should have qualified my previous entry with one word DREAMWORLD ) .
hbg

Iraq Report Details Political Hurdles and Future Options
Iraq Report Details Political Hurdles and Future Options
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 6, 2008; A21

A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.

The experts were reassembled by the U.S. Institute of Peace, which convened the congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group, a high-level panel that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq and offered recommendations in 2006. The new report predicts that lasting political development could take five to 10 years of "full, unconditional commitment" to Iraq, but also cautions that future progress may not be worth the "massive" human and financial costs to the United States.

Some recent favorable developments in Iraq come from factors "that are outside U.S. control" and susceptible to rapid change, the report said, including the cease-fire by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and the new Sunni Awakening councils made up of former insurgents and tribal leaders opposed to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The report, obtained by The Washington Post, is due for release today.

Should the United States opt to remain fully engaged in Iraq, the new report argues, a greater emphasis on political and economic development at the local level is critical, as the Maliki government, elected in 2005, has failed to connect with its own people.

"Rather than trying to resolve long-term, controversial political issues about the nature of the Iraqi state, the U.S. could let those questions linger and instead work on governing capacity building at the provincial and local levels and cultivating new, local leaders," it advises. The rise of local leaders and parties could then create the circumstances for genuine reconciliation, the report says.

The political, military and intelligence experts, some of whom have served in government, also urge consideration of a "grand bargain" to bring all Iraqi factions together to discuss the core disputes, including the distribution of power, federalism and constitutional revisions.

The report outlines two options if Washington seeks to reduce its Iraq commitment. The first option would peg U.S. engagement to Iraq's agreement to decentralize power to its provinces, leaving the Baghdad government in charge of national defense and revenue distribution only. If Iraq fails to act, however, Washington should "cut its losses" and work out a withdrawal schedule; if Iraq complies, the United States should maintain a reduced troop presence to train the army and police.

"Reductions in troop levels will likely result in some degree of chaos and violence no matter what," the report warns. "The decentralized, fragmented political dynamic in Iraq cannot be reversed." Creation of a strong central government that can take on security is unlikely to happen in the time left for the current expanded U.S. military presence.

The second option is unconditional redeployment of all U.S. forces in Iraq, possibly beginning in January and completed by 2011. At the same time, however, Washington would build an "enhanced" military presence in the region and stronger regional alliances, while providing political support for the Baghdad government.

The original Iraq Study Group was chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (Ind.). Its recommendations, delivered in a December 2006 report, included the beginning of a phased withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq by early this year and a greater emphasis on regional diplomacy, including reaching out to Iran and Syria.

The White House blocked efforts to reassemble the 10-member bipartisan panel for a second review by discouraging Baker not to participate, although Hamilton was interested in a sequel timed to the assessment this week by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, according to several sources involved in the project.

That's what Bush does best; hush up any criticism of his Iraq disaster.

C I
you can not hush up BUSH's behaviour if you were an AMERICAN:

How about making a lovely holiday in
Bagdad?
If not Kabul?
I had appealed umpteen times.
Are there any Mahathma Gandhi?
Nelson Mandela?
MLK?
Mother Theresa?
or any xyz non-entities amoung US?

The General and the Trap
by Ira Chernus and Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch
They came, they saw, they… deserted.

That, in short form, is the story of the Iraqi government "offensive" in Basra (and Baghdad). It took a few days, but the headlines on stories out of Iraq ("Can Iraq's Soldiers Fight?") are now telling a grim tale. The information in them is worse yet. Stephen Farrell and James Glanz of the New York Times estimate that at least 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen, or more than 4 percent of the force sent into Basra, "abandoned their posts" during the fighting, including "dozens of officers" and "at least two senior field commanders."

Other pieces offer even more devastating numbers. For instance, Sudarsan Raghavan and Ernesto Londoño of the Washington Post suggest that perhaps 30 percent of government troops had "abandoned the fight before a cease-fire was reached." Tina Susman of the Los Angeles Times offers 50 percent as an estimate for police desertions in the midst of battle in Baghdad's vast Sadr City slum, a stronghold of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.

In other words, after years of intensive training by American advisers and an investment of $22 billion, U.S. military spokesmen are once again left trying to put the best face on a strategic disaster (from which they were rescued thanks to negotiations between Moqtada al-Sadr and advisers to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, brokered in Iran by Gen. Qassem Suleimani, a man on the U.S. Treasury Department's terrorist watch list). Think irony. "From what we understand," goes the lame American explanation, "the bulk of these [deserters] were from fairly fresh troops who had only just gotten out of basic training and were probably pushed into the fight too soon."

This week, with surge commander Gen. David Petraeus back from Baghdad's ever redder, ever more dangerous "Green Zone," here are a few realities to keep in mind as he testifies before Congress:

1. The situation in Iraq is getting worse: Don't believe anyone who says otherwise. The surge-ified, "less violent" Iraq that the general has presided over so confidently is, in fact, a chaotic, violent tinderbox of city states, proliferating militias armed to the teeth, competing regions armed to the teeth, and competing religious factions armed to the teeth. Worse yet, under Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the U.S. has been the great proliferator. It has armed and funded close to 100,000 Sunnis organized into militias reportedly intent on someday destroying "the Iranians" (i.e., the Maliki government). It has also supported Shi'ite militias (aka the Iraqi army). In the recent offensive, it took sides in a churning Shi'ite civil war. As Nir Rosen recently summed matters up in a typically brilliant piece in the Nation magazine, Baghdad today is but a set of "fiefdoms run by warlords and militiamen," a pattern the rest of the country reflects as well. "The Bush administration," he adds, "and the U.S. military have stopped talking of Iraq as a grand project of nation-building, and the U.S. media have dutifully done the same." Meanwhile, in the little noticed north of the country, an Arab/Kurdish civil war over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly Mosul as well is brewing. This, reports Pepe Escobar of Asia Times, could be explosive. Think nightmare.
More, http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=12643

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

The USA wins and succeeds in Iraq when the daily rate of violent deaths in Iraq decreases below 30, remains less than 30, while we are removing our troops, and remains less than 30 for at least a year after we have completed our departure.

ican, dont hold your breath. The plan seems to be more bloodshed. Why else arm all sides as we did during the "surge"? "under Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the U.S. has been the great proliferator. It has armed and funded close to 100,000 Sunnis organized into militias reportedly intent on someday destroying "the Iranians" (i.e., the Maliki government). It has also supported Shi'ite militias (aka the Iraqi army)." Escalation seems to be more the plan winning. There's no money in winning.

Malarky!

ican, are you saying this is not true or justifying it, "under Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the U.S. has been the great proliferator. It has armed and funded close to 100,000 Sunnis organized into militias reportedly intent on someday destroying "the Iranians" (i.e., the Maliki government). It has also supported Shi'ite militias (aka the Iraqi army)" ? One thing it's not is a formula for less bloodshed.

Failure is not acceptable. If you have a better way to achieve success, post it. Otherwise your criticisms have zero merit, and are malarkey!

ican, my solution begins with the prosecution of Bushie and Blair for crimes against humanity. Malarky is believing Bushie ever had winning in mind. Continuous war is all he ever wanted.

What would those crimes be, and who would prosecute?
Also, if he has committed the crimes you are accusing him of, why has no comletent legal authority, ANYWHERE on the planet, brought such charges yet?