Iraqi PM insists peace is possible without U.S.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19760628/


Al-Maliki claims ‘full confidence’ if coalition forces withdraw ‘at any time’

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was “natural” given Iraq’s turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like “an experiment in an American laboratory.” He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid’s comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki’s inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.

Thursday’s White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.

‘Still in need of more weapons’
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government’s collapse if the Americans leave.

But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”

But he added that Iraqi forces are “still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation” to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs “time and effort” to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks — “particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference.”

“These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges,” he said.

In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the goverment and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation — a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.

‘The situation looks as if it is an experiment’
Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday’s report “objective,” but added, “this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail.”

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a “purely American vision.”

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. “These are gangs of killers,” he said.

“There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias,” said al-Suneid.

He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki’ government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad’s Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital’s eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

“This embarrasses the government in front of its people,” he said, calling the civilian deaths a “human rights violation.”




I think they are getting the idea that we chose to fight them 'al qaeda' there in their own backyards. They are finally figuring out that we decided to fight our war on terror with their country as a theatre of our war.... On one hand Yoni tells us here that fight them there so they don't follow us home and the Iraqi people are saying thanks for putting us in the middle...

[boutons_]

The Iraqi govt doesn't want us there,

a majority of the Iraqi people don't want us there, saying US presence worsens/prolongs the violence (remember, dubya is supposed to have invaded to do the Iraqis a big fucking favor),

and a majority of the AMERICAN people don't want the US in Iraq,

so what's the problem?

dubya and dickhead plan to build the huge US embassy and those 4 huge US military bases and stay there for decades, to protect their oil grab.

Invading Iraq was NEVER about terrorism,
nor bad guy Saddam,
nor bringing democracy to Iraq.
It was always and is always an oil grab.

And now the Iraqis don't want to pass the oil law that gives foreign US/UK oilcos ownership of the fields and production-sharing contracts, which loses the Iraqis a lot of oil money, which is why the US/UK oilcos want production-sharing. All other countries long ago switched to lease contracts.

[PixelPusher]

Damn, the corpse of "We fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" isn't even cold yet, and we're already getting "We will stand down when they stand up" ready to walk the green mile.

[Yonivore]

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
Noticeably absent from that article is any request, by the Iraqi government, that U. S. forces actually leave.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Noticeably absent from that article is any request, by the Iraqi government, that U. S. forces actually leave.


But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”


So let's leave.

[Yonivore]

But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”


So let's leave.
Well, there's the little matter of killing the rest of al Qaeda while we have them on the run.

I'll just assume you haven't been paying attention.

But, seriously, the president has multiple objectives in Iraq, one of which is enabling Iraqi police and military to secure and hold their geography while maintaining peace. Another is tracking down and killing terrorists.

It's nice that Maliki says we can leave, if we want.

[Yonivore]

http://www.riehlworldview.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/13/iraq_progress.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, there's the little matter of killing the rest of al Qaeda while we have them on the run.

I'll just assume you haven't been paying attention.

But, seriously, the president has multiple objectives in Iraq, one of which is enabling Iraqi police and military to secure and hold their geography while maintaining peace. Another is tracking down and killing terrorists.

It's nice that Maliki says we can leave, if we want.


Killing the rest of al-qaeda? I think we are in agreement that killing the rest of these f*ckers is probably the only way to ensure our safety. However we wll never be able to kill them all. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because of us.Since they seem to have a nver ending supply of dead enders we may never leave Iraq if that is the requirement to be met. We won't know if Iraq can stand on it's own until we let them do it themsleves. I get the feeling these people may step up to the plate knowing the Americans won't be there to fight their battles anymore. There are reports that Iraqis are actually fighting al-qaeda now so to me that seems to bode well. Iaqis don't want al-qaeda in their backyard and they seem to want to kill them as bad as we want to. The problem now is that our presence is bringing al-qaeda in and we have decided to fight our war with them being in the middle of it. To me that is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

[PixelPusher]

http://www.riehlworldview.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/13/iraq_progress.jpg
It certainly looks like a more unified Iraq when you paint it all in one "happy green" color...all the Shia, Sunni and Kurds are just one big happy family.

[Yonivore]

Killing the rest of al-qaeda? I think we are in agreement that killing the rest of these f*ckers is probably the only way to ensure our safety. However we wll never be able to kill them all.
So we should give up?


Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because of us. Since they seem to have a nver ending supply of dead enders we may never leave Iraq if that is the requirement to be met.
I think we disagree on who was there first, however, at this point, it no longger matters...there they are. And, I'd rather they keep sending their dead enders where we already have a quarter-million troops than to send them where Posse Comitatus prohibits large-scale military operations.


We won't know if Iraq can stand on it's own until we let them do it themsleves. I get the feeling these people may step up to the plate knowing the Americans won't be there to fight their battles anymore. There are reports that Iraqis are actually fighting al-qaeda now so to me that seems to bode well. Iaqis don't want al-qaeda in their backyard and they seem to want to kill them as bad as we want to. The problem now is that our presence is bringing al-qaeda in and we have decided to fight our war with them being in the middle of it. To me that is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.
Well, hearts and minds we are winning. I suggest you spend time reading Michael Yon's dispatches from neighborhoods where the actual fighting is taking place instead of relying on stringer-supplied AP stories.

But, irregardless, I don't think anyone wants us to stay in Iraq one minute longer than we have to. The Congress confirmed Petreaus, delayed funding for a couple of months and then gave it to him and told him to report back in September. Now, there's a drumbeat to yank the rug in late June, early July.

What gives? I think the left sees the progress being made and is afraid of success.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So we should give up?


I think we disagree on who was there first, however, at this point, it no longger matters...there they are. And, I'd rather they keep sending their dead enders where we already have a quarter-million troops than to send them where Posse Comitatus prohibits large-scale military operations.


Well, hearts and minds we are winning. I suggest you spend time reading Michael Yon's dispatches from neighborhoods where the actual fighting is taking place instead of relying on stringer-supplied AP stories.

But, irregardless, I don't think anyone wants us to stay in Iraq one minute longer than we have to. The Congress confirmed Petreaus, delayed funding for a couple of months and then gave it to him and told him to report back in September. Now, there's a drumbeat to yank the rug in late June, early July.

What gives? I think the left sees the progress being made and is afraid of success.


With all due respect I have heard fr the last 4 yrs that 'progress is being made. Please allow me to withold my judgement that progress is actually being made. The only progress that will acceptable to the American people is when we turn this over. Bush has been his own worst enemy since the war started. He and his fellow hawks have been telling us for the last 4 yrs that things are getter better. If anyone questioned them they were taunted, disrespected, and mauled politically. So now you are still taunting and disrepecting the same people with the " What gives? I think the left sees the progress being made and is afraid of success" comments. If anything your side's position should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Yonivore]

With all due respect I have heard fr the last 4 yrs that 'progress is being made. Please allow me to withold my judgement that progress is actually being made. The only progress that will acceptable to the American people is when we turn this over. Bush has been his own worst enemy since the war started. He and his fellow hawks have been telling us for the last 4 yrs that things are getter better. If anyone questioned them they were taunted, disrespected, and mauled politically. So now you are still taunting and disrepecting the same people with the " What gives? I think the left sees the progress being made and is afraid of success" comments. If anything your side's position should be taken with a grain of salt.
Reserve your judgement, Petraeus reports in September.

[PixelPusher]

With all due respect I have heard fr the last 4 yrs that 'progress is being made. Please allow me to withold my judgement that progress is actually being made. The only progress that will acceptable to the American people is when we turn this over. Bush has been his own worst enemy since the war started. He and his fellow hawks have been telling us for the last 4 yrs that things are getter better. If anyone questioned them they were taunted, disrespected, and mauled politically. So now you are still taunting and disrepecting the same people with the " What gives? I think the left sees the progress being made and is afraid of success" comments. If anything your side's position should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's all about how you define progress, in this particular case, they've decided to place all the other calamitous clusterfuck elements of Iraq on "ignore" and focus exclusively on al Qaeda in Iraq as the singular enemy and the source of all the problems, hence the "cooperation" with many of the sunni militia groups we used to call "insurgents"...notice how everything is now "al Qaeda" and the term "insurgent" is nowhere to be found.

This is all based on the gamble that the Sunnis and Shia will tacitly agree to play nice and allow us a graceful exit after "defeating" al Qaeda.

[clambake]

So we should give up? What gives? I think the left sees the progress being made and is afraid of success.
I swear, making statements like this shows you're unravelling. Nobody wants to lose, but victory can't even be defined anymore. You need to focus on how to spin the outcome. You're more concerned with his reputation than you are about his consistent failures or mounting death tolls.

Cute map. Is that paint by numbers?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Reserve your judgement, Petraeus reports in September.


I , like , most Americans want us to succeed in Iraq. Why? At this point there 'is' no other option. Where you and I part ways with this is at what to do now. I am willing to give Petraeus a chance to get this done. It seems that there is 'real' progress being made on the ground in Iraq. I hope there is.

[boutons_]

"focus exclusively on al Qaeda in Iraq as the singular enemy and the source of all the problems"

This is the lie from dubya. Other sources, including US generals in Iraq, less self-serving and demagogic than dubya, place AQ not as the top priority in Iraq, but as the 4th or 5th.

Even with AQ foreigners totally obliterated in Iraq (won't happen anyway, they will just keep coming), the Sunni/Shiite civil war will continue until exhaustion (who knows what Turkey and Iraqi Kurds will do?), the total lack of progress in the Sunni/Shiite political discussions will remain stalemated.

Petraeus and dubya have both said that the ONLY SOLUTION in Iraq is political, not miltary. The surge was supposed to stabilize (just) Bagdad so the Iraqi politicians could make progress. dubya's own report his week shows the Iraqi politicians stalemated, NOT prgressing, no matter how un/successful the surge.

Petraeus will make a MILITARY report in Sep, which will in all probability say "need more time" (open ended, actually, at least thru 20 Jan 2009) for MILITARY operations (because the surge hasn't kicked ass as advertized).

Does anybody really believe the Iraqi politicians and the Sunni/Shiite civil war will be substantially improved, ie, allowing US draw down, in next 60 days, after 4 years of violence?

[fyatuk]

It's all about how you define progress, in this particular case, they've decided to place all the other calamitous clusterfuck elements of Iraq on "ignore" and focus exclusively on al Qaeda in Iraq as the singular enemy and the source of all the problems, hence the "cooperation" with many of the sunni militia groups we used to call "insurgents"...notice how everything is now "al Qaeda" and the term "insurgent" is nowhere to be found.

This is all based on the gamble that the Sunnis and Shia will tacitly agree to play nice and allow us a graceful exit after "defeating" al Qaeda.

Well, in all fairness the change to cooperation with the Sunni "insurgents" wasn't all the occupation/coalition forces idea. The Sunni insurgents had originally co-operated with al-Qaeda and other true terrorist groups that had moved into Iraq, but even they got sick of those groups.

Of course, it's easy to classify the Sunni/Shia difficulties as internal struggles and bow out under the premise of ceasing to exascerbate the situation. Can't really do that with al-Qaeda and other groups that moved in after we dismantled the Iraqi security system (still not sure how they thought 150k combined troops could replace the 400k Iraqi troops in providing security).

[Yonivore]

I , like , most Americans want us to succeed in Iraq. Why? At this point there 'is' no other option. Where you and I part ways with this is at what to do now. I am willing to give Petraeus a chance to get this done. It seems that there is 'real' progress being made on the ground in Iraq. I hope there is.
I don't see anything you said with which I disagree.

[Yonivore]

Aide: Iraqi PM's Comments Misconstrued (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070715/D8QD7CRG2.html)


On Sunday, al-Maliki's adviser Yassin Majid told The Associated Press that the prime minister meant that efforts to bolster Iraq's security forces would continue "side-by-side with the withdrawal."

Majid urged the United States to continue building up Iraqi forces so they would be ready whenever the White House orders a troop withdrawal.

[xrayzebra]

The Iraqi govt doesn't want us there,


dubya and dickhead plan to build the huge US embassy and those 4 huge US military bases and stay there for decades, to protect their oil grab.

Invading Iraq was NEVER about terrorism,
nor bad guy Saddam,
nor bringing democracy to Iraq.
It was always and is always an oil grab.



Damn boutons, where is all this oil dubya and cheney
"grabbed". And how come we are paying these high
prices for gasoline? Looks like dubya would get those
prices lower with all "his" new oil and bring those
poll numbers up. You know like he hid all those WMD
to prove Saddam had them........
:dizzy

[PixelPusher]

Aide: Iraqi PM's Comments Misconstrued (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070715/D8QD7CRG2.html)
So Malaki has his own "Tony Snow" to re-imagineer his prior comments. Why is this news?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, there's the little matter of killing the rest of al Qaeda while we have them on the run.

the problem is that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is in a position to fight effectively on the run. We can chase them out of Baghdad but they'll emerge elsewhere in Iraq to cause chaos and destruction.

[Yonivore]

the problem is that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is in a position to fight effectively on the run. We can chase them out of Baghdad but they'll emerge elsewhere in Iraq to cause chaos and destruction.
We'll see. They're not doing so hot right now.

[Oh, Gee!!]

We'll see. They're not doing so hot right now.

but we're also not in a traditional war. we can kill them at a ratio of 10-to-1 but they get their victories from bombing the crap out of innocent civilians and not necessarily by killing more of us than we kill of them. Essentially, their main function is to make the U.S. look foolish, and they gain ground in that regard with every car bombing.

[clambake]

Maliki should be kicked out and tried for treason. Those statements can only amount to the destruction of our troops morale. It's the equivalent of giving the enemy comfort and aid. He should be in line in front of Murtha.

[DarkReign]

but we're also not in a traditional war. we can kill them at a ratio of 10-to-1 but they get their victories from bombing the crap out of innocent civilians and not necessarily by killing more of us than we kill of them. Essentially, their main function is to make the U.S. look foolish, and they gain ground in that regard with every car bombing.

I think that is an accurate picture of "Al Queda" or whatever label they wear. Theyre not trying to win a war, theyre trying to undermine the effort.

Its not a game unless both sides have a common goal. We and "they" obviously do not, therefore, the terms of victory are difficult to explain, nonetheless attain.

There is no such thing as "winning" in Iraq. The absolute best one could hope for is a stalemate. See Vietnam and Korea.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think that is an accurate picture of "Al Queda" or whatever label they wear. Theyre not trying to win a war, theyre trying to undermine the effort.

Its not a game unless both sides have a common goal. We and "they" obviously do not, therefore, the terms of victory are difficult to explain, nonetheless attain.

There is no such thing as "winning" in Iraq. The absolute best one could hope for is a stalemate. See Vietnam and Korea.


then add into the mix the fact that everybody else over there is doing the same thing as AQ and you get these results: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/16/iraq.main/index.html

[Yonivore]

but we're also not in a traditional war. we can kill them at a ratio of 10-to-1 but they get their victories from bombing the crap out of innocent civilians and not necessarily by killing more of us than we kill of them. Essentially, their main function is to make the U.S. look foolish, and they gain ground in that regard with every car bombing.
They'll eventually run out of people willing to organize, fund, and train their jihad.

It's the same dynamic that insures the KKK no longer lynches African Americans and that the Black Panthers no longer burn down cities. You run out of leaders either through attrition or loss of confidence in an ideology.

Look at what's happening in "Palestine."

The degree of the self-inflicted catastrophe that Hamas created with its rebellion is coming into clearer focus after polling Gaza voters (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1184489824500). The territory used to serve as Hamas' political power base, but now a plurality of voters support their rival, Fatah. Even worse, two-thirds of previous Hamas voters would not repeat that mistake:


The violent takeover of the Gaza Strip has cost Hamas some support there and bolstered its rival, Fatah, according to a poll released Sunday.

Hamas swept through Gaza last month, vanquishing numerically superior forces aligned with Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who responded by dismissing the Hamas-led government and installing a new one with his backers.

The poll of Gaza residents shows a backlash. Hamas got only 23 percent support, down from 29 percent in the previous survey last month, while Fatah climbed from 31 percent to 43 percent.

The poll, the first major survey since the Hamas takeover, also showed that 66 percent of Hamas supporters said they would vote Fatah if it undertook reforms.
On one level, this poll -- like most -- is irrelevant. Hamas didn't conduct a coup so they could be popularly re-elected, which Gazans apparently have just discovered. An increasing awareness of Hamas' "authoritarian" nature is one of the reasons for the disaffection in the poll, which should have come as no surprise to anyone who knows the track record of radical Islamist movements.

Something along the same lines is occurring in Iraq. That's why you have previously hostile insurgent groups now cooperating with the Multinational forces there. They've discovered al Qaeda offers them the same thing Hamas offers Gazans -- totalitarian, theocratic, and inflexible rule.

Al Qaeda made it clear a long time ago that Iraq was the central battle in their global jihad and that once they defeated us there, the country would become the central focus of a regional -- but, eventually global -- caliphate.

If they are defeated in Iraq, they -- like Hamas -- will lose much of the popular support that is currently fueling their terrorist training camps. Removing the leadership by tomahawk missile or through attrition will only speed up the process.

[clambake]

They'll eventually run out of people willing to organize, fund, and train their jihad.

It's the same dynamic that insures the KKK no longer lynches African Americans and that the Black Panthers no longer burn down cities. You run out of leaders either through attrition or loss of confidence in an ideology
:lmao

[Oh, Gee!!]

Something along the same lines is occurring in Iraq. That's why you have previously hostile insurgent groups now cooperating with the Multinational forces there. They've discovered al Qaeda offers them the same thing Hamas offers Gazans -- totalitarian, theocratic, and inflexible rule.

I wonder if those formerly hostile groups are helping in our effort to defeat AQ in Iraq in hopes of instilling their own brand of totalitarinism in Iraq?


Al Qaeda made it clear a long time ago that Iraq was the central battle in their global jihad and that once they defeated us there, the country would become the central focus of a regional -- but, eventually global -- caliphate.

If they are defeated in Iraq, they -- like Hamas -- will lose much of the popular support that is currently fueling their terrorist training camps.

It's impossible to tell whether a US victory in Iraq will cause AQ to lose support. It's not as though the defeat of AQ in Afghanistan was the death knell we had hoped for in that region.

[Yonivore]

I wonder if those formerly hostile groups are helping in our effort to defeat AQ in Iraq in hopes of instilling their own brand of totalitarinism in Iraq?
A reasonable concern, I admit. However, one thing's for sure, it won't be al Qaeda and they're the group that has declared war on us.


It's impossible to tell whether a US victory in Iraq will cause AQ to lose support. It's not as though the defeat of AQ in Afghanistan was the death knell we had hoped for in that region.
I think Zawahiri's multiple tapes, over the past year, pleading for jihadists is prime example of what affect our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elswhere are having on their organization.

I also think the latest tape is a pathetic attempt to use what little "prestige" bin Laden's visage still holds to bring people into al Qaeda. It's also a pretty good indicator bin Laden is dead.

[Oh, Gee!!]

A reasonable concern, I admit. However, one thing's for sure, it won't be al Qaeda and they're the group that has declared war on us.

I think Zawahiri's multiple tapes, over the past year, pleading for jihadists is prime example of what affect our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elswhere are having on their organization.

I also think the latest tape is a pathetic attempt to use what little "prestige" bin Laden's visage still holds to bring people into al Qaeda. It's also a pretty good indicator bin Laden is dead.

My concern is that Al Qaeda can simply slink away and live to fight another day (maybe on our soil) regardless of the outcome in Iraq. I just don't see Iraq as the all-or-nothing proposition you see it as when it comes to Al Qaeda.

[Yonivore]

My concern is that Al Qaeda can simply slink away and live to fight another day (maybe on our soil) regardless of the outcome in Iraq.
Several thousand of them won't.


I just don't see Iraq as the all-or-nothing proposition you see it as when it comes to Al Qaeda.
It's not just me.


"Baghdad is the capital of the caliphate."


"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war … raging in [Iraq]."


"I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."
Seems to be al Qaeda disagrees with you over Iraq.

[xrayzebra]

My concern is that Al Qaeda can simply slink away and live to fight another day (maybe on our soil) regardless of the outcome in Iraq. I just don't see Iraq as the all-or-nothing proposition you see it as when it comes to Al Qaeda.

OG, they too are tied up in Iraq. Not just us.

Did you see the news this weekend about OBL telling
everyone about how great it was to blow yourself up. How long
before someone ask: if it so great how come you haven't
blown yourself up?

One other question. If we leave, what have we accomplished? What will be there story line be. We won,
they lost. We defeated the "big Satan" again just as
we have always done. Have no fear of them. They are
weak, we are strong. Praise Alla!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Seems to be al Qaeda disagrees with you over Iraq.

nothing prevents them from stopping and regrouping, not even OBL's words. Seems like that's what they have done in Afghanistan.

[Oh, Gee!!]

OG, they too are tied up in Iraq. Not just us.

Did you see the news this weekend about OBL telling
everyone about how great it was to blow yourself up. How long
before someone ask: if it so great how come you haven't
blown yourself up?

One other question. If we leave, what have we accomplished? What will be there story line be. We won,
they lost. We defeated the "big Satan" again just as
we have always done. Have no fear of them. They are
weak, we are strong. Praise Alla!

Whatever occurs in Iraq will be spun as propaganda by AQ.

[xrayzebra]

Whatever occurs in Iraq will be spun as propaganda by AQ.

So that is why we should just leave? Winning is not an
option. Damn, you sound just like Reid and Pelosi.

I love it, well really not. Silly people like you and the rest
of the dimm-o-craps and wannabe publicans want to
declare defeat. But the American people don't. Like
Rush says, who has the lowest numbers. Those that want
out of Iraq or the Congress......Hell Congress has lower
numbers than Bush. Also, like Rush says, who the hell
cares what Congress says, Bush is the CINC, they want
to end the war, cut off funds. No guts no glory. And I
will assure you they have no guts.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So that is why we should just leave? Winning is not an
option. Damn, you sound just like Reid and Pelosi.

I love it, well really not. Silly people like you and the rest
of the dimm-o-craps and wannabe publicans want to
declare defeat. But the American people don't. Like
Rush says, who has the lowest numbers. Those that want
out of Iraq or the Congress......Hell Congress has lower
numbers than Bush. Also, like Rush says, who the hell
cares what Congress says, Bush is the CINC, they want
to end the war, cut off funds. No guts no glory. And I
will assure you they have no guts.


Once again ray we have already won the war. You lost me at " hush says.."

[xrayzebra]

^^I can understand that, losing you. It is not hard to under-
stand. Just think, just a little bit.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So that is why we should just leave? Winning is not an
option. Damn, you sound just like Reid and Pelosi.

I love it, well really not. Silly people like you and the rest
of the dimm-o-craps and wannabe publicans want to
declare defeat. But the American people don't. Like
Rush says, who has the lowest numbers. Those that want
out of Iraq or the Congress......Hell Congress has lower
numbers than Bush. Also, like Rush says, who the hell
cares what Congress says, Bush is the CINC, they want
to end the war, cut off funds. No guts no glory. And I
will assure you they have no guts.

You remind me of a crazy person.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You remind me of a crazy person.


ray isn't crazy he's a ditto head..

[clambake]

You remind me of a crazy person.
He can hide his own Easter eggs, wrap his own presents, throw his own surprise party, write his own obituary. Rush :lmao

[boutons_]

the conditions for the current fiasco and failure to secure Iraq were determined back in 2003: too few US troops (Shinsheki 400K vs Rummy 130K), disbanding the Iraqi army+police (Bremer), forbidding mid/low level Baathists any role.

dubya/dickhead/accomplices have fucked up over and over and over to get us where we are now. And yet yoni and WC want to keep letting dubya and dickhead keeping fucking up and wasting US military indefinitely.

And note that "support the troops" doesn't work for dubya. He's trashed or replaced a whole string of generals, blaming Tommy Franks for the initial round of fuckups. Petraeus' colleagues think dubya is setting up Petraeus to be the next scapegoat when the surge is seen to have failed to secure just Bagdad.

It's easy to imagine dubya and dickhead saying in the future "our idea to grab the oil in Iraq was wonderful, the but military fucked it up", while refusing, as they do now, for ANY blame for the Iraq disaster.

Then the ankle-biters and knee-jerks and Repug shills like yoni and WC and Clanny will be sliming opponents of the Iraq war as traitors, defeatists, gutless chickenshits while absolving dubya and dickhead of all blame.

[Yonivore]

Hell, even Senator Jim Webb sees the progress being made in Iraq and declares imminent victory there. But, of course, that wasn't quite his intention. He was attempting to declare a failure but accidentally got his facts right. On Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19694666/page/2/), a debate waged between Senators Jim Webb and Lindsay Graham resulted in the following statement by Senator Webb.


And with respect to al-Qaeda, quite frankly, al-Qaeda didn’t come to Iraq to try to destroy a democracy. That’s a very, very flimsy democracy there. We all recognize that. Al-Qaeda came to Iraq because the United States was in Iraq, and the people in al-Anbar are not aligning themselves with the United States. It’s “The enemy of the enemy is my friend.” This hasn’t been the Iraqi military, the national military that’s been taking out al-Qaeda. It’s been a redneck justice. It’s been these sectarian groups out there who don’t like al-Qaeda. And if we leave, they still will not like al-Qaeda.
His statement is right on so many points, it's more than a little heartening.

First, democracy or no, Al-Qaeda is in Iraq to attack the United States. Where would the Senator rather rather have them attack us? Second, he is correct that this is a case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." But in terms of Al-Qaeda, that is called aligning themselves with the United States. We share a common enemy and are fighting it together. That is all "ally" means. What is he expecting? Conversions? Third, al-Anbar is a Sunni province. al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Sunnis have been their support base. And now a major part of that support base is turning against al-Qaeda.

The biggest sign of success is when we no longer need to count on the military solutions but rather, the support base itself turns against the terrorists. Yet he is bemoaning the absence of a military component to this accomplishment. Senator Webb has done us the favor of highlighting some outstanding signs of imminent success although it was rather ambitious of him to spin them the way he did. It is also difficult to reconcile his belief that this revolt by the support base is "redneck justice" with the following statement (http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/variouspubs/navalinstitute.htm) taken from his own website.


Looking at these [Viet Nam] examples, you come to a conclusion about the use of force in this situation. In my opinion, we need to articulate clearly that we do not have a quarrel with the Muslim world. But the part of the Muslim world that considers itself at war with us must be on notice. Who are these people? They are the ones conducting terrorist activities and those training and providing logistical support to them. All those people, in my opinion, should be fair game. Over time, we should see the people who are conducting this international campaign of terrorism being cut away from their support base. Many good people were cut away from the support base of the South Vietnamese government. I think there’s a direct parallel.
Senator Webb is delivering good news suggesting that resistance to terrorism may soon be strong enough for us to reduce support levels. But he sounds greatly disappointed that this resistance is at the grass roots, and not a military accomplishment.

Why do I suspect that if it was a military accomplishment, he would be lamenting the absence of grass roots support?

[PixelPusher]

^Because he recognizes that there is more than one type of "grass roots" in Iraq, and once We and AQ leave, they'll set their sights on each other. You know, that pesky "civil war" thing you and Neocons pretend doesn't exist.



Why do I suspect that if it was a military accomplishment, he would be lamenting the absence of grass roots support?

Why do I suspect that if the resulting civil war occurs on Bush's watch, it'll be "Those F'ing Iraqis!" fault, but if the pullout and civil war occurs on a Democrat's watch in '09 or later, it'll be "SEE! We TOLD you this would happen, ya lousy cut'n'runners!"

[Yonivore]

Gen. Pace Declares Iraq "Sea Change" (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1644001,00.html)

Against the backdrop of stories like this one, Harry Reid's surrender slumber party takes on an almost lunatic air --a rushing about by the lefties to legislate defeat before the clear facts of progress leading to victory become widely known and lastingly illustrative of the Dems' inability to be trusted with the country's national security.

Seems like desperation to undermine the war before it is irretreivably won is settling into the Democrat camp.

I wonder what their election prospects will be next year when the world realizes how wrong they all were about Iraq.

[Oh, Gee!!]

it's not exactly going smoothly in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070717/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071600330.html

[xrayzebra]

How bout we do like the Bush ask. Give it until September.

Only about 75 days.

I would like to ask boutons something, I know I wont get an answer, but it will give you all a chance to answer, what is
the alternative to not winning in Iraq. We just pull all the
troops out, which wont happen, and sit on our butt here in
good old USA and wait for something to happen? We haven't
secured our borders, that I will blame on Bush and the
dimm-o-craps, we haven't increased the military strength, we
have relied upon the National Guard and reserves. That again
is Bush's and Congress as a whole fault. We will, I predict,
have many more battles, wars, to fight in the ME and I am not
sure the country is geared to accept that fact. AQ is entrenched
in so many countries and denied by so many politicians that it
is scary. I hear all these politicians talk about negotiating with
these people, okay, where do we find them? How do you enforce
any negotiated settlement? What country do you negotiate with?
Which group? You are dealing with radicals, religious nuts who
are still in the dark ages............oh I could go on, but what is
the point. Just waiting for the "it was all our fault" group to
comment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gen. Pace Declares Iraq "Sea Change" (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1644001,00.html)

Against the backdrop of stories like this one, Harry Reid's surrender slumber party takes on an almost lunatic air --a rushing about by the lefties to legislate defeat before the clear facts of progress leading to victory become widely known and lastingly illustrative of the Dems' inability to be trusted with the country's national security.

Seems like desperation to undermine the war before it is irretreivably won is settling into the Democrat camp.

I wonder what their election prospects will be next year when the world realizes how wrong they all were about Iraq.


wrong about Iraq? wrong about what? let's say iraq becomes stable before the 08 elections how will that hurt the dems? I guarantee you that the 70% of the population that want us out of Iraq will be satisfied and in the end it may benefit the dems for pushing to get us out of there..

[PixelPusher]

wrong about Iraq? wrong about what? let's say iraq becomes stable before the 08 elections how will that hurt the dems? I guarantee you that the 70% of the population that want us out of Iraq will be satisfied and in the end it may benefit the dems for pushing to get us out of there..
Define "becoming stable"? A mutual detante by the various factions while the U.S. pounds on a few AQ, declares "victory" and leaves? And then when they resume hostilities, what then? Can't go with the "it'll be a disaster if we leave" talking point, can they? It'll probably be a variant of the "Those f'ing Iraqis!" blame game.

[Mr. Peabody]

it's not exactly going smoothly in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070717/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071600330.html

I was going to print the good things that are happening in Iraq for balance, but according to the Good News/Positive Developments in Iraq blog, nothing good has happened since May 12th.

http://www.kmax.ws/b/goodnewsiniraq.htm

[boutons_]

Although dubya is absolutely certain what will happen after the US pulls of of Iraq, nobody else with no oil-grabbing/scare-mongering agenda is certain of anything. dubya's superior knowledge and future-telling is why he's Pres and why we can all sleep better.


===============


Exit Strategies

Would Iran Take Over Iraq?
Would Al-Qaeda?
The Debate About How and When to Leave Centers on What Might Happen After the U.S. Goes.

By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; A01

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

( ... compared to the beauty of Iraq today? :lol )

In making the case for a continued U.S. troop presence, President Bush has offered far more dire forecasts, arguing that al-Qaeda or Iran -- or both -- would take over Iraq after a "precipitous withdrawal" of U.S. forces.

( red herring, who is demanding a precipitous withdrawal? Estimates are it would take 8 - 12 months to pull everybody and everything out )

Al-Qaeda, he said recently, would "be able to recruit better and raise more money from which to launch their objectives" of attacking the U.S. homeland.

(total bullshit. the consensus is that dubya's Iraq war has been a hugely effective AQ recruiting campaign. Again, how would AQI reach the USA from Iraq? )

War opponents in Congress counter that Bush's talk about al-Qaeda is overblown fear-mongering and that nothing could be worse than the present situation.

Increasingly, the Washington debate over when U.S. forces should leave is centering on what would happen once they do. The U.S. military, aware of this political battlefield, has been quietly exploring scenarios of a reduced troop presence, performing role-playing exercises and studying historical parallels. Would the Iraqi government find its way, or would the country divide along sectarian lines? Would al-Qaeda take over? Would Iran? Would U.S. security improve or deteriorate? Does the answer depend on when, how and how many U.S. troops depart?

Some military officers contend that, regardless of whether Iraq breaks apart or outside actors seek to take over after a U.S. pullout, ever greater carnage is inevitable. "The water-cooler chat I hear most often . . . is that there is going to be an outbreak of violence when we leave that makes the [current] instability look like a church picnic," said an officer who has served in Iraq.

However, just as few envisioned the long Iraq war, now in its fifth year, or the many setbacks along the way, there are no firm conclusions regarding the consequences of a reduction in U.S. troops. A senior administration official closely involved in Iraq policy imagines a vast internecine slaughter as Iraq descends into chaos but cautions that it is impossible to know the outcome. "We've got to be very modest about our predictive capabilities," the official said.

( huh? dubya knows for sure what would happen. Fuck war games and scenarious, Just ask dubya! :lol )


Mistakes of the Past

In April of last year, the Army and Joint Forces Command sponsored a war game called Unified Quest 2007 at the Army War College in Pennsylvania. It assumed the partition of an "Iraq-like" country, said one player, retired Army Col. Richard Sinnreich, with U.S. troops moving quickly out of the capital to redeploy in the far north and south. "We have obligations to the Kurds and the Kuwaitis, and they also offer the most stable and secure locations from which to continue," he said.

"Even then, the end-of-game assessment wasn't very favorable" to the United States, he said.

Anderson, the retired Marine, has conducted nearly a dozen Iraq-related war games for the military over the past two years, many premised on a U.S. combat pullout by a set date -- leaving only advisers and support units -- and concluded that partition would result. The games also predicted that Iran would intervene on one side of a Shiite civil war and would become bogged down in southern Iraq.

T.X. Hammes, another retired Marine colonel, said that an extended Iranian presence in Iraq could lead to increased intervention by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states on the other side. "If that happens," Hammes said, "I worry that the Iranians come to the conclusion they have to do something to undercut . . . the Saudis." Their best strategy, he said, "would be to stimulate insurgency among the Shiites in Saudi Arabia."

In a secret war game conducted in December at an office building near the Pentagon, more than 20 participants from the military, the CIA, the State Department and the private sector spent three days examining what might unfold if the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group were implemented.

One question involved how Syria and Iran might respond to the U.S. diplomatic outreach proposed by the bipartisan group, headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). The gamers concluded that Iran would be difficult to engage because its divided government is incapable of delivering on its promises. Role-players representing Syria did engage with the U.S. diplomats, but linked helping out in Baghdad to a lessening of U.S. pressure in Lebanon.

The bottom line, one participant said, was "pretty much what we are seeing" since the Bush administration began intermittent talks with Damascus and Tehran: not much progress or tangible results.

Amid political arguments in Washington over troop departures, U.S. military commanders on the ground stress the importance of developing a careful and thorough withdrawal plan. Whatever the politicians decide, "it needs to be well-thought-out and it cannot be a strategy that is based on 'Well, we need to leave,' " Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, a top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Friday from his base near Tikrit.

History is replete with bad withdrawal outcomes. Among the most horrific was the British departure from Afghanistan in 1842, when 16,500 active troops and civilians left Kabul thinking they had safe passage to India. Two weeks later, only one European arrived alive in Jalalabad, near the Afghan-Indian border.

The Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, which began in May 1988 after a decade of occupation, reveals other mistakes to avoid. Like the U.S. troops who arrived in Iraq in 2003, the Soviet force in Afghanistan was overwhelmingly conventional, heavy with tanks and other armored vehicles. Once Moscow made public its plans to leave, the political and security situations unraveled much faster than anticipated. "The Soviet Army actually had to fight out of certain areas," said Army Maj. Daniel Morgan, a two-tour veteran of the Iraq war who has been studying the Soviet pullout at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., with an eye toward gleaning lessons for Iraq. "As a matter of fact, they had to airlift out of Kandahar, the fighting was so bad."

War supporters and opponents in Washington disagree on the lessons of the departure most deeply imprinted on the American psyche: the U.S. exit from Vietnam. "I saw it once before, a long time ago," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Vietnam veteran and presidential candidate, said last week of an early Iraq withdrawal. "I saw a defeated military, and I saw how long it took a military that was defeated to recover."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), also a White House hopeful, finds a different message in the Vietnam retreat. Saying that Baghdad would become "Saigon revisited," he warned that "we will be lifting American personnel off the roofs of buildings in the Green Zone if we do not change policy, and pretty drastically."
The Al-Qaeda Threat

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

( be careful! Do NOT contradict dubya's forecast of AQ taking over Iraq. The majority Shiite Iraqis just love the Sunni/AQ foreigners pouring into Iraq :lol )

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan." If U.S. troops leave too soon, Bush said, they would probably "have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

( dubya, war-gamer and future-teller extraodinaire! And we can trust his future-telling now because he's been absolutely infallible these past 6 years. :lol )

Withdrawal would also "confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region and embolden Syria and especially Iran, which would then exert its influence throughout the Middle East," the president said.

Bush is not alone in his description of the al-Qaeda threat should the United States leave Iraq too soon. "There's not a doubt in my mind that Osama bin Laden's one goal is to take over the Kingdom of the Two Mosques [Saudi Arabia] and reestablish the caliphate" that ended with the Ottoman Empire, said a former senior military official now at a Washington think tank. "It would be very easy for them to set up camps and run them in Anbar and Najaf" provinces in Iraq.

( as predicted by many, the Sunni AQ would not be given a free pass by the Iraqi/Iranian Shiites )

U.S. intelligence analysts, however, have a somewhat different view of al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq, noting that the local branch takes its inspiration but not its orders from bin Laden. Its enemies -- the overwhelming majority of whom are Iraqis -- reside in Baghdad and Shiite-majority areas of Iraq, not in Saudi Arabia or the United States. While intelligence officials have described the Sunni insurgent group calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq as an "accelerant" for violence, they have cited domestic sectarian divisions as the main impediment to peace.

In a report released yesterday, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that al-Qaeda is "only one part" of a spectrum of Sunni extremist groups and is far from the largest or most active. Military officials have said in background briefings that al-Qaeda is responsible for about 15 percent of the attacks, Cordesman said, although the group is "highly effective" and probably does "the most damage in pushing Iraq towards civil war." But its activities "must be kept in careful perspective, and it does not dominate the Sunni insurgency," he said.
'Serious Consequences'

Moderate lawmakers such as Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) have concluded that a unified Iraqi government is not on the near horizon and have called for redeployment, change of mission and a phased drawdown of U.S. forces. Far from protecting U.S. interests, Lugar said in a recent speech, the continuation of Bush's policy poses "extreme risks for U.S. national security."

Critics of complete withdrawal often charge that "those advocating [it] just don't understand the serious consequences of doing so," said Wayne White, a former deputy director of Near East division of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau. "Unfortunately, most of us old Middle East hands understand all too well some of the consequences."

White is among many Middle East experts who think that the United States should leave Iraq sooner rather than later, but differ on when, how and what would happen next. Most agree that either an al-Qaeda or Iranian takeover would be unlikely, and say that Washington should step up its regional diplomacy, putting more pressure on regional actors such as Saudi Arabia to take responsibility for what is happening in their back yards.

Many regional experts within and outside the administration note that while there is a range of truly awful possibilities, it is impossible to predict what will happen in Iraq -- with or without U.S. troops.

"Say the Shiites drive the Sunnis into Anbar," one expert said of Anderson's war-game scenario. "Well, what does that really mean? How many tens of thousands of people are going to get killed before all the surviving Sunnis are in Anbar?" He questioned whether that result would prove acceptable to a pro-withdrawal U.S. public.

White, speaking at a recent symposium on Iraq, addressed the possibility of unpalatable withdrawal consequences by paraphrasing Winston Churchill's famous statement about democracy. "I posit that withdrawal from Iraq is the worst possible option, except for all the others."

==========

Well, dubya is planning for the unwanted US occupation of Iraq to last a long time, bulding a huge US embassy, building a4 huge Army bases, and the Air Force is bulding an air base that is supposed to match Langley as their showcase base.

[Yonivore]

I was going to print the good things that are happening in Iraq for balance, but according to the Good News/Positive Developments in Iraq blog, nothing good has happened since May 12th.

http://www.kmax.ws/b/goodnewsiniraq.htm
Then you need better sources.