Could it be? Something positive to report from Iraq?

[Skybird]

Taken for itself, yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7088013.stm

That's good, and I followed these developement for some months now. But as good as it is taken for itself, there is no reason to be enthusiastic abiout and say "Now all things will come to good end." These Sunni groups will not be strong - or even willing - enough to keep Iranian influence low, which could lead to a far more open civel war with the Shia than we already have, and they also are not allies of the US or sympathisze with them, in fact they make the US responisble for what they are in right now. Note that the article also says they are no sympathizers of the occupation. If AQ would eventually be gone one day (and I'm more tempted to think they will at least remain a low profile, and act behind the stage curtain, like they did in Afghanistan since years and since their "defeat"), it could mean that these Sunni groups then reshift the attention again - against the US. Since the latter destroyed all their privileges and superior position in Saddam'S Iraq, they have no reason to be thankful.

So: make hay while the weather is fine, and take the opportunity to make at least one of the enemy groups suffer. That means most likely - due to the pride things they are living by down there - not to come in the Sunni's way but let them act and fight all on themselves as long as they do not call for help. and if they do, do not be stupid and give them help by handing them weapons. They won't be recollected, and will be turned against Americans in the future, for sure. If they want to be the hammer, use US power to serve as an anvil at best.

[Onkel Neal]

Nuri al-Maliki says "terrorist acts" in Baghdad down 77 percent since last year (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/11/iraq.main.ap/index.html)

I don't take this as proof things are complete or even turning the corner. But I am glad to see things going the right way. I'm rooting for the good guys. ;)

[Skybird]

You are right, Maliki, being under pressure by Washington to show up with good news and improvement, should not be trusted with anything he says. But I read confirmation that violence had slowed down a bit in several regions in several different news sources. especially concering Baghdad I read US militaries mentioning numbers in the range of 40-50%, however that also is just a number from a party with it's own media interest, so handle with care. Also, MSNBC pointed at violence in the country remaining to be twice as high as in '06.

BUT - there is always a "but" involved - observers from outside the US military don't become tired to tell since summer this year that this trend likely is because in the wake of the socalled "surge" by Us troops, massive ethnic cleansing committed not by the US troops of course, but by the Sunni and Shia factions has taken place. Mixed neighbourhoods are no more, many people had to move and give up their former homes. Accepting this seems to have been the price to sell operation "surge as a partial success. and it has longterm consequences - nothing's for free. the two factions, Shia and sunni, and especially the families who had to move, often fleeing in the face of violence, giving up their former neighbourhood and possessions to the other side, have created a lot of additional hate and wishes for revenge that way. Once the pressure by AQ and the occupation is gone, the open bills possibly will get started to be payed.

A very strong hint of this ethnic cleansing is that the Red Crescent says that during 2007, the number of replaced or still moving people has doubled.

It also is to be feared, that hostile resistence has not been broken, but is only adapting, and avoiding the massive fire from US forces, shifting to other areas, and delaying their activities. Afghanistan and the "victory" over the Taleban in the first year should be a warning example before one is tempted to think the enemy is weakened. And finally, the actions mentioned, for the most are delivering the fight to those factions that are made up by foreigners. the militias formed by Iraqi fighters, no matter if Sunni or Shia, are not so much affected. In Afghnaistan they threw out the foreigners for the most part, after the Soviets left, only some groups and people more interested in scoial work and ideologic education to win Afghans sympathy from within their clans remained. And look what came from that.

"Violence down", no matter to what degree, also means something different: that Iran has strengthened it's influence to a degree where it is no longer opposed in parts of the country, or was able to bring opposition to a silence by Iranian pressure. In the end it is not in iran's interest to project it's influence by the use of force, which would make it attackable to foreign criticism and scepticism, but to find means to implement Iranian's religious and political influence less sensational and in a more low profile manner, to evade critcism and brandmarking. they are almost doomed to be the great winners of this whole story, no matter how it goes with Iraq. A silent, creeping "Iranization" is the most promising card to play for them, since time is on their side.

[XabbaRus]

Seems more of a revenge attack since AQ had taken out a few Sunni leaders prior to this.

[Skybird]

i thought that first, too, but then thought twice, seeing that some sunni sheichs have started since spring, I think it was, to form a sunni opposition, or a second front againt foreign terror groups (it's not only Al Quaeda). then a key figure oif these sheichs got killed, and then another one recently, which might have been the reaction from AQ&foreigners to this new front. So now the Sunnis strike back, also reacting. And the others will answer.

And so another wheel starts turning. However, these certain sunni sheichs took the initiative in opposing foreign groups.

Also, this sunni "alliance" includes only parts of the Sunni clans, by far not all.

[baggygreen]

Its oh-so-messy over there, and i really wish we could just let them sort it out amongst themselves. Unfortunately, imo, its simply not an option, for 2 reasons, one is that there is a moral obligation to try resolve the mess as it came about courtesy of the invasion, and the other is strategic, in that if we left and let them sort it, it wouldnt be resolved internally in Iraq; turkey, saudi, and most worryingly iran would get involved.

I do think the Sunni opposition to AQ isnt a sign that they're alligning themselves with the coalition, more its a case of "this is my block, i'll run things my way". I fear that once AQ are out of the picture (if such a thing can happen) that the arms and training provided by the US will be turned against them.

[yankee-V]

Baggy, Agree to some extent. My thoughts are that they (the Iraqis) will never be ready for Iraqi-ization. Not sure what the consequences will be when we pull out. One possibility though, is that with us gone, they are responsible for themselves, and they might unify against the outsiders (Saudi, Iran etc.).

It could happen.

[Onkel Neal]

I will preface this article byt he same remarks of the author: I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.

In any case, just seeing skeptics (including and especially Hitchens) come to terms with success after such a long and difficult struggle is very satisfying :smug: I'm glad to see that standing up to terrorists may work, I was never an advocate of negotiating with them or bowing down to them.

Full article: Something To Give Thanks For (http://www.slate.com/id/2178286/)
Good news from Iraq. (http://www.slate.com/id/2178286/)


all the reporters and soldiers I can get hold of (who include some direly skeptical people in both categories) seem agreed on one thing: The forces of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi stink in the nostrils of the Arab world, and have been—here I borrow some words of Thomas Paine—"in point of generalship … outwitted, and in point of fortitude outdone." Bin Ladenism in Iraq has been dealt a stinging defeat. Surely this is something to celebrate.

[Skybird]

Also, this reprint which originally was published in the NYT:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-518402,00.html

I notice this and other developements, of course, however I stick to the cautionings to being too enthusiastic, that I gave earlier. Let's wait and watch a little for what will come from this. Caution cannot hurt.

[Bum]

You are right, even though this is good news, anything can happen over there. The Iraqis could have finally realized to make the American army leave, just sit still for a while. I'm not sure they are that smart but who knows???

[Bum]

wtf?? is a "Navy Dude"???? :damn:

[bookworm_020]

wtf?? is a "Navy Dude"???? :damn:

A reject from the village people!:yep::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Wait untill you become bonnet boy!

Back to topic : Good news doesn't get covered as much, due to it not selling more papers, making more people watch and so on. When they do cover good news it's hard to know if it's real or some spin doctors attampt to make a bad situation look good, if not better.

Some parts of Iraq have become stable and iraqis have taken over the general day to day running of these areas. Hopefuly this will continue long after the last foriegn soldier leaves.

[Peto]

Events in Iraq certainly have taken a turn. Where the path will lead remains to be seen... I am hopefull--and not just because my son is over there--that Al Queda is truly on the ropes. Right Wing Extremists usually find it difficult to maintain popular support for long in almost any culture, so I remain hopeful.

However, I can't help but notice that the "slow-down" in the groups activity can be traced roughly to September when Bin Laden told them to quit fighting amongst themsleves and focus on the real enemy--namely the US and Western Nations. If he actually has that much influence, it could be that they again are just biding their time and waiting for a moment to strike that will cause the most damage.

I sure hope I'm wrong. Please tell me I'm off base here and--please tell me why!

Glad I've started checking this side of subsim (General Topics)!!! It may be the "Darkside" but it certainly draws all the finest people :yep:!

Peto

[Skybird]

Glad I've started checking this side of subsim (General Topics)!!! It may be the "Darkside" but it certainly draws all the finest people :yep:!

Peto
Wait until the sun is rising and all the freaks come out... :lol: Occasionally, it can be a madhouse too, you see. Think of it as a seasonal phenomenon. :D

[Skybird]

First printed in the NYT:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,518631,00.html

(...)
At one level, I just don't get it. It's clear that the surge by US troops has really dampened violence in Iraq. So don't we now need a surge in diplomacy to finish the job?
It often feels to me as if Secretary Rice just wants to keep Iraq at arm's length and hope that it will somehow end up on someone else's report card.
(...)
I say to myself: "Maybe you're missing something that Secretary Rice knows -- that there isn't going to be any formal political reconciliation moment in Iraq, grand bargain or White House signing ceremony. The surge has made Iraq safe, not for formal political reconciliation yet, but safe for an 'A.T.M. peace.' "
(...)
Michael Gordon, The Times's top military expert, whose history of the Iraq war, "Cobra II," is one of the best books on the subject, said the phrase circulating in the military lately to describe the situation evolving in Iraq is "accommodation without reconciliation." The various parties basically accept the new imbalance of power -- Shiites on top, but allowing the Kurds and Sunnis to have a share -- and the political struggle continues with lower levels of violence.
(...)
maybe the question we need to start asking is not: When do Iraqis reach a formal internal peace so we can go? But rather: Can the informal arrangements they're cobbling together reach a level of stability that would enable a major drawdown of US forces next year?
(...)
Right now what is indisputable is that we are seeing the first crack in years in a wall of pessimism that has been the Iraq story. It is only a crack, but it creates new possibilities. It would be reckless to ignore or exaggerate.
(...)
I went to a source I knew I could trust -- my colleague James Glanz, The Times's Baghdad bureau chief who has lived through so much craziness there: "There is a sense of quiet on the streets that we have not seen for a long time in Baghdad," he told me, "but there is also a big question mark in the shadows of every alley. We don't know what is lurking back there, but we suspect, and evidence suggests, that it is the same set of problems that were always there."

[Fish]

Cheney know all of this on forehand:



DICK CHENEY: At the end of the war in the Gulf, when we made the decision to stop, we did so because we had achieved our military objectives -- that is, when we decided to halt military operations. Those objectives were twofold: to liberate Kuwait and, secondly, to strip Saddam Hussein of his offensive military capability, of his capacity to threaten his neighbors. And we had done that.
There is no doubt in my mind, but what we could have gone on to Baghdad and taken Baghdad, occupied the whole country. We had the 101st Airborne up on the Euphrates River Valley about halfway between Kuwait and Baghdad. And I don’t think, from a military perspective, that it would have been an impossible task. Clearly, it wouldn’t, given the forces that we had there.
But we made a very conscious decision not to proceed for several reasons, in part because as soon as you go to Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein, you have to recognize that you’re undertaking a fairly complex operation. It’s not the kind of situation where we could have pulled up in front of the presidential palace in Baghdad and said, “Come on, Saddam. You’re going to the slammer.” We would have had to run him to ground. A lot of places he could have gone to hide out or to resist. It would have required extensive military forces to achieve that.
But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it, we got Saddam now and maybe we put him down there in Miami with Noriega. Then the question comes, putting a government in place of the one you’ve just gotten rid of. You can’t just sort of turn around and away; you’ve now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? You want a Sunni government or a Shia government, or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Baath Party, or maybe some combination of all of those.
How long is that government likely to survive without US military forces there to keep it propped up? If you get into the business of committing US forces on the ground in Iraq to occupy the place, my guess is I’d probably still have people there today, instead of having been able to bring them home.
We would have been in a situation, once we went into Baghdad, where we would have engaged in the kind of street-by-street, house-to-house fighting in an urban setting that would have been dramatically different from what we were able to do in the Gulf, in Kuwait in the desert, where our precision-guided munitions and our long-range artillery and tanks were so devastating against those Iraqi forces. You would have been fighting in a built-up urban area, large civilian population, and much heavier prospects for casualties.
You would have found, as well, I think, probably the disintegration of the Arab coalition that signed on to support us in our efforts to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait, but never signed on for the proposition that the United States would become some kind of quasi-permanent occupier of a major Middle Eastern nation. And the final point, with respect to casualties, everybody, of course, was tremendously impressed with the fact that we were able to prevail at such a low cost, given the predictions with respect to casualties in major modern warfare. But for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it was not a cheap or a low-cost conflict. The bottom-line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: Not very damn many. I think the President got it right both times, both when he decided to use military force to defeat Saddam Hussein’s aggression, but also when he made what I think was a very wise decision to stop military operations when we did.

That was Dick Cheney, speaking in September of 1992 at the Economic Club of Detroit.So why the h*ll did he change his mind?


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/16/1419245