Iraq - what do we do now?

[Seatacus]

Didn't we do a regime change there by getting rid of Milosivic?

 

[KCFlyer]

Didn't we do a regime change there by getting rid of Milosivic?

Yes...I believe Bush called it "Nation Building" and said that his administration wouldn't be in the business of Nation Building.

 

[delldude]

I am upset that we are in Iraq because it is a country that we are hated by and that we had no hope of attaining our stated goals (pick on, he changed then several times). The US was not vilified in Kosovo. Pepole were being murdered left and right (just as in Iraq) but we were not considered to be satan as we were in the Middle East.

Myths of Iraq
By Ralph Peters

During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines.

No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress.


Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media:

Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary.

Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance.

Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists.

Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned.

The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen.

The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success.

Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope.

The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus.

Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women’s rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues.

Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror.

But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful.

The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines.

To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant.

The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening.

While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history.

 

[Flying Titan]

Under Clinton's charge we did go into Bosnia and Kosovo. Places that were of no threat to us and ignored by much of Western Europe. I believe many Americans were supportive of Clinton's efforts. Please correct me if I am wrong.

And Reagan invaded Grenada...and George H.W. Bush invaded Panama...and the price of a dozen eggs is 99 cents at the supermarket this week... All involve very different circumstances. What does any of that have to do with W's invasion of IRAQ???

 

[Garfield1966]

Myths of Iraq
By Ralph Peters

During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines.

No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress.
Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media:

Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary.

Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance.

Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists.

Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned.

The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen.

The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success.

Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope.

The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus.

Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women’s rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues.

Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror.

But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful.

The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines.

To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant.

The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening.

While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history.

Nothing says "I love you" like an IED. Am I missing something? 2800 troops have died in a region that does not hate us. Iran and the US will not be breaking bread anytime soon. Syria, yea, they are a nice bunch. Jordan .. guess it depends what time of the day it is. blah blah blah.


Claims of civil war.
There are bodies being found in the streets on a regular basis.

Disunity
Overblown? The 3 factions want each other dead. They have been fighting for 100’s of years. What history books has this nut been reading?

Hatred of the US military.
Yea, they want them gone. I don’t see that happening. The puppet government we installed in Iraq is impotent.

Appeal of religious militias
See above.

Failure of the army.
I could have sworn I read recently that several hundred Iraqi troops were canned because of incompetence. I’ll have to look for that source.

Reconstruction
I have seen in various source quite different stories.

The biggest question I have is given the ability of the republicans to spin pretty much everything in their favor, they really have not been able to sell this story. There seems to be so much more evidence contradicting this apparent piece of fiction that I have a hard time believing it.


BTW, when does the 'cheering in the streets' start that Rummsfeld promissed?

 

[delldude]

Nothing says "I love you" like an IED. Am I missing something? 2800 troops have died in a region that does not hate us. Iran and the US will not be breaking bread anytime soon. Syria, yea, they are a nice bunch. Jordan .. guess it depends what time of the day it is. blah blah blah.
Claims of civil war.
There are bodies being found in the streets on a regular basis.

Disunity
Overblown? The 3 factions want each other dead. They have been fighting for 100’s of years. What history books has this nut been reading?

Hatred of the US military.
Yea, they want them gone. I don’t see that happening. The puppet government we installed in Iraq is impotent.

Appeal of religious militias
See above.

Failure of the army.
I could have sworn I read recently that several hundred Iraqi troops were canned because of incompetence. I’ll have to look for that source.

Reconstruction
I have seen in various source quite different stories.
During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines.
The biggest question I have is given the ability of the republicans to spin pretty much everything in their favor, they really have not been able to sell this story. There seems to be so much more evidence contradicting this apparent piece of fiction that I have a hard time believing it.
BTW, when does the 'cheering in the streets' start that Rummsfeld promissed?

In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned. 😱

 

[Garfield1966]

Hmmmm Did someone fail to tell al-Maliki that he is the leader of a puppet government and does not need to be informed of our decisions to run our occupied nation? The nerve. I especially like this part.

The prime minister dismissed U.S. talk of timelines as driven by the upcoming midterm elections in the United States. "I am positive that this is not the official policy of the American government but rather a result of the ongoing election campaign. And that does not concern us much," he said.

And this little tidbit

Bush acknowledged that al-Maliki may not have been consulted beforehand.


Ooopss. ya think?

Full article
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...iite-raid_x.htm

I can’t wait to the see the back paddling on this one. You would think after 3 years in this cluster f%^k of a war, they would have learned something. Ahhhh hope springs eternal.

 

[local 12 proud]

Not that its utopia, but perhaps a vialble alternative until some order or balance can take hold.

Thoughts anyone?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=25112

 

[Flying Titan]

Actually, that seems a lot like what John Murtha was proposing more than a year ago.

Personally, I see some potential problems that would develop from this - but overall, it's better than the status quo.

The problems?

- What, if anything, would trigger a re-entry of US forces into the Iraqi population centers? Would the massacre of one sect by another sect prompt US action?
- Do isolated bases in less populated parts of the country make US troops an inviting target for insurgents and/or terrorists? Would that scenario be harder or easier to defend against?

Again - on the surface, I think it's a better option than what we have now, but it would require better planning and execution than we've seen to date if it is going to work.

 

[delldude]

Top Ten John Kerry Excuses

10. Lightheaded from too much Botox

9. Hasn't been himself since he heard Bob Barker is retiring

8. Remark was an ill-conceived, careless blunder, kind of like the war

7. Just displaying that famous wit that cost him the 2004 election

6. Hoped saying something really stupid would make him seem more presidential

5. Too much Halloween candy

4. Relax, the election is months away

3. So I botched a joke -- Letterman does it every night

2. On the advice of his friend Mel Gibson, he's blaming it on the Jews

1. "Hey, it was still funnier than most of the jokes on this list"

 

[Flying Titan]

I am one of those who doubted from the beginning that we had good reason to go into Iraq. I thought (and still think) that containment and inspections were working, and that there was no apparent connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Having said that, we can NOT just walk out. President Bush's (and therefore, our) mistake going into Iraq will only be compounded if we just walk out.

Having said all of that, here's how I see it going forward. I don't believe there are any good options here, so we must choose the least bad option.

I believe we must choose sides in the current civil war in Iraq and help them defeat the other side. In our current referee role, we are backing a government that nobody there seems to really support. The Iraqi government is not collecting taxes, building infrastructure, delivering any services, or even providing the most basic protections of a credible fire or police service. Justice is currently being handed down by militias in most of the country - not any government system. So, in reality, there is no government. It's in name only. We need to pick a side that we can help WIN, even though it's not likely to be as democratic as we would like.

The only other option that would make sense is to partition the country - Kurdistan (US friendly), Sunni-stan (who knows?), Shi'a-stan (who knows?). Help them devise a way to share oil revenues and some critical natural resources and then leave them to their own devices - with a permanent US military base in Kurdistan, of course! (Sad, but probably necessary)

That's my two cents. I think we may see something pointing the administration in one of these directions in the next few months as a follow-up to whatever recommendation comes from the Baker commission. Seems like it could provide cover for Mr. Stay-the-Course to actually shift strategy and find a plausable way out.

I thought I would bring this topic back today. In light of the massive sectarian attacks in the last few days, MSNBC now says it will refer to the conflict in Iraq as a civil war. I applaud them for having the courage, as journalists, to finally state the obvious.

Now, more than ever, the US needs to pick sides (as I observed earlier - see above) or get out. There is no chance of success if we continue to just be a "referee" - e.g. attacking al Sadr's militia one day and then protecting it the next - in the name of being neutral and keeping the peace (which is non-existent in the central part of the country).

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I thought I would bring this topic back today. In light of the massive sectarian attacks in the last few days, MSNBC now says it will refer to the conflict in Iraq as a civil war. I applaud them for having the courage, as journalists, to finally state the obvious.

Now, more than ever, the US needs to pick sides (as I observed earlier - see above) or get out. There is no chance of success if we continue to just be a "referee" - e.g. attacking al Sadr's militia one day and then protecting it the next - in the name of being neutral and keeping the peace (which is non-existent in the central part of the country).

It also appears that Iraqi officials are reaching beyond the U.S. to solve its problems. Today, the Iraqi president met with Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, in an attempt to create regional diplomatic initiatives. Iraq also restored the long forgotten relationship with Syria when it invited the Syrian Foreign Minister to Baghdad.

 

[jimntx]

In light of the massive sectarian attacks in the last few days, MSNBC now says it will refer to the conflict in Iraq as a civil war. I applaud them for having the courage, as journalists, to finally state the obvious.

Yesterday (11/27/06), Matt Lauer interviewed retired 4-star general Barry McCaffrey on the Today show. Matt read a dictionary definition of civil war that included 3 main points...
1. Two (or more) groups of a country's citizens warring with each other to gain political control. (Shia vs. Sunni?)
2. The warring groups use violence against each other in an attempt to gain supremacy. (Does anyone deny that there is violence in Iraq today committed by citizens upon other citizens?)
3. A government which is incapable of stopping or containing the violence. (The Iraqi "government" doesn't seem to be capable of much of anything, much less stopping the violence.)

Matt asked Gen. McCaffrey if he disagreed with any of those points. Gen. McCaffrey replied that he did not. But then he reminded Matt that he (Gen. McCaffrey) stated publicly on the Today show 15 months ago that Iraq was in a state of civil war.

The administration's response to MSNBC's pronouncement of civil war in Iraq was that "Iraq is not in a state of civil war, but could easily slip into civil war if the violence worsens." How bad does it have to get???


Reminds me of the old joke about the man who was caught in bed with another woman by his wife. He said, "Now, dear. Don't jump to conclusions. Who are you going to believe? Me or your eyes."

 

[jimntx]

This morning on CNN.com, news of a memo from Stephen Hadley, Bush's National Security advisor, in which he expresses doubt as to Iraq President's ability to do anything about the violence.

"The reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action," the story quoted the memo as saying.

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the White House would not dispute the accuracy of quoted material in the story.

Full Story

 

[local 12 proud]

So lets hear your plan!