PDA

View Full Version : U.S. intelligence warns Iraq war could explode again


L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-07-2008, 09:01 PM
But...but...but...I thought the surge "worked?" ???


By Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers Tue Oct 7, 5:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON — A nearly completed high-level U.S. intelligence analysis warns that unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing the major security and political gains achieved over the last year.


U.S. officials familiar with the new National Intelligence Estimate said they were unsure when the top-secret report would be completed and whether it would be published before the Nov. 4 presidential election.

More than a half-dozen officials spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because NIE's, the most authoritative analyses produced by the U.S. intelligence community, are restricted to the president, his senior aides and members of Congress except in rare instances when just the key findings are made public.

The new NIE, which reflects the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, has significant implications for Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama , whose differences over the Iraq war are a major issue in the presidential campaign.

The findings seem to cast doubts on McCain's frequent assertions that the United States is "on a path to victory" in Iraq by underscoring the deep uncertainties of the situation despite the 30,000-strong U.S. troop surge for which he was the leading congressional advocate.

But McCain could also use the findings to try to strengthen his argument for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until conditions stabilize.

For Obama, the report raises questions about whether he could fulfill his pledge to withdraw most of the remaining 152,000 U.S. troops within 16 months of taking office so that more U.S. forces could be sent to battle the growing Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan .

Word of the draft NIE comes at a time when Iraq is enjoying its lowest levels of violent incidents since early 2004 and a 77 percent drop in civilian deaths in June through August 2008 over the same period in 2007, according to the Defense Department .

U.S. officials say last year's surge of 30,000 troops, all of whom have been withdrawn, was just one reason for the improvements. Other factors include the truce declared by anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al Sadr , the leader of an Iran -backed Shiite Muslim militia; and the enlistment of former Sunni insurgents in Awakening groups created by the U.S. military to fight al Qaida in Iraq and other extremists.

The draft NIE, however, warns that the improvements in security and political progress, like the recent passage of a provincial election law, are threatened by lingering disputes between the majority Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs, Kurds and other minorities, the U.S. officials said.

Sources of tension identified by the NIE, they said, include a struggle between Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen for control of the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk ; and the Shiite-led central government's unfulfilled vows to hire former Sunni insurgents who joined Awakening groups.

A spokesman for Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell , whose office compiled the estimate, declined comment, saying the agency does not discuss NIE's.

The findings of the intelligence estimate appear to be reflected in recent statements by Army Gen. David Petreaus , the former top U.S. commander in Iraq , who has called the situation "fragile" and "reversible" and said he will never declare victory there.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed that tone on Monday during a State Department awards ceremony for Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

"Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is certain in this life. And success in Iraq is not a sure thing," Rice said in an uncharacteristically downbeat comment.

The NIE findings parallel a Defense Department assessment last month that warned that despite "promising developments, security gains in Iraq remain fragile. A number of issues have the potential to upset progress."

Trouble spots include whether the former Sunni insurgents, also known as the Sons of Iraq , find permanent employment; provincial elections scheduled for January; Kirkuk's status; the fate of internally displaced people and returning refugees; and "malign Iranian influence," the unclassified Pentagon report said.

The intelligence agencies' estimate also raises worries about what would happen if Sadr, the anti-U.S. cleric, attempts to reassert himself, according to senior intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

If Sadr abandons his cease-fire, it is unclear whether his former followers would rejoin his cause or whether his movement is permanently fractured, and thus harder to control.

The embattled Sons of Iraq program may prove to be the ultimate challenge to sustained stability in Iraq . The U.S. program to pay mostly Sunni former insurgents to protect their neighborhoods or in some cases to stop shooting at Americans is now moving into the hands of the Shiite-led government.

Many of the roughly 100,000 men of the mostly Sunni paramilitary groups have fled to Syria , while others remain in Iraq , worried that the Shiite government will disband and detain the men. The U.S. military has promised not to abandon the men, of whom about 54,000 were transferred to Iraqi government control this month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081007/wl_mcclatchy/3066066

Paladin
10-07-2008, 10:36 PM
I would bet the Mahdi Cleric character sees a chance to enhance Obama's candidacy and will flare up to make a point. Anyone who knows a little bit about that region, knows that the Surge was just one factor that coincided with the desires of the Sunni Tribal chiefs to get Al Qaeda off their backs. Shiites were told by the clerics to stand down for a period of time that also coincided with the timing of the surge.

Know what? Surge or no surge, if those boys want to engage in a civil war, the American troops ain't gonna stop it. That war has lasted for 3000 years. Some of the "Coalition of the Willing" has pulled out, and the American taxpayer is stuck with Mr. Bush's War....

They want us out, the American people want out, let's leave. I remember all the dire predictions about VietNam if the Americans pulled out. To his credit, Nixon bailed even though th e"truce" was flimsy as h3ll. They actually are a decent country now, and a tourist destination...

cutthemdown
10-07-2008, 11:08 PM
I would bet the Mahdi Cleric character sees a chance to enhance Obama's candidacy and will flare up to make a point. Anyone who knows a little bit about that region, knows that the Surge was just one factor that coincided with the desires of the Sunni Tribal chiefs to get Al Qaeda off their backs. Shiites were told by the clerics to stand down for a period of time that also coincided with the timing of the surge.

Know what? Surge or no surge, if those boys want to engage in a civil war, the American troops ain't gonna stop it. That war has lasted for 3000 years. Some of the "Coalition of the Willing" has pulled out, and the American taxpayer is stuck with Mr. Bush's War....

They want us out, the American people want out, let's leave. I remember all the dire predictions about VietNam if the Americans pulled out. To his credit, Nixon bailed even though th e"truce" was flimsy as h3ll. They actually are a decent country now, and a tourist destination...

If by decent you mean a country that doesn't allow political dissent, jails its own citizens with no trial, Has among the worst prison conditions in all of asia, is in a severe economic depression do to the ruling communists, Has all media controlled by the govt, no foreign ISP, doesn't allow religions to worship unless they promise not to say anything bad about the govt,.................Then I totally agree.

I mean who cares as long as I can visit and see an old temple or two.

HR 506 was a bill in 2007 that dealt with the severe human rights issues in Vietnam. Don't go thinking for a second they wouldn't have been better off if we had won that war and defeated the communists.

Who is better off? North Koreans or S. Koreans? People living in China? Or Taiwan?

For sure the Vietnamese people would be living better today had America not given up the fight in Vietnam.

kappys
10-08-2008, 08:13 AM
If by decent you mean a country that doesn't allow political dissent, jails its own citizens with no trial, Has among the worst prison conditions in all of asia, is in a severe economic depression do to the ruling communists, Has all media controlled by the govt, no foreign ISP, doesn't allow religions to worship unless they promise not to say anything bad about the govt,.................Then I totally agree.

I mean who cares as long as I can visit and see an old temple or two.

HR 506 was a bill in 2007 that dealt with the severe human rights issues in Vietnam. Don't go thinking for a second they wouldn't have been better off if we had won that war and defeated the communists.

Who is better off? North Koreans or S. Koreans? People living in China? Or Taiwan?

For sure the Vietnamese people would be living better today had America not given up the fight in Vietnam.

Really a bad comparison. South Korea and Taiwan were formed before the era of Kennedy Imperialism.

The US then proceeded to install terrorist regimes in Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Guatemala, supported the Generals in Brazil/Argentina, etc, etc.

The people of Vietnam have some of the highest cancer rates and birth defect rates in the world. You want to tell me they would have been better off if the US continued the invasion? Are u serious? We levelled the entire nation and devestated its population, not to mention the poor peasant populations of Laos and Cambodia to boot.

The biggest failing is that the US leadership actually wants an iron fisted tyrant just like Saddam to take control - but one who takes orders directly for Washington. These poor tribesman are making the mistake of thinking that they should benefit for the resources of their region - a crucial mistake when the US imperial machine is involved.

Rohirrim
10-08-2008, 08:52 AM
The embattled Sons of Iraq program may prove to be the ultimate challenge to sustained stability in Iraq . The U.S. program to pay mostly Sunni former insurgents to protect their neighborhoods or in some cases to stop shooting at Americans is now moving into the hands of the Shiite-led government.

This is the point from which the whole place will begin to unravel. We've got to get our people out of there. We succeeded. We got rid of Saddam for them and gave them back control of their government. What do they need now, a babysitter? Let the UN do that.

Denver Crush
10-08-2008, 09:26 AM
We just need to get the **** out of Dodge.

alkemical
10-08-2008, 09:41 AM
Notice how this story, the iran story (of the plane that was forced down), the release of an Al Queda tape, all happened like, now...?

Dudeskey
10-08-2008, 09:48 AM
Coca Cola's Surge didn't work either...™
http://myspace-497.vo.llnwd.net/01248/79/40/1248150497_l.jpg

orinjkrush
10-08-2008, 09:48 AM
it never really was a "military" victory.
it is/was a political accomodation between factions.
the gang wars could restart in a heartbeat.

Paladin
10-08-2008, 10:52 AM
.......For sure the Vietnamese people would be living better today had America not given up the fight in Vietnam.

Who fricking cares? Every country or culture has to define itself and govern itself anyway it wishes. The point is that Vietnam is not threatening its neighbors, and people don't really goive a sh^t beyond that. unless they got oil then they become a vital American Ally.....They will be stuck in the Dark Ages for, well, ages.....

What I am saying is that the Shi'ia on Sunni conflag is gonna happen. And it could hurt Iran in the end of it....

Rohirrim
10-08-2008, 10:55 AM
For sure the Vietnamese people would be living better today had America not given up the fight in Vietnam.

Maybe you should ask them that question? I highly doubt you could find any Vietnamese who would agree with you.

cutthemdown
10-08-2008, 10:58 AM
Maybe you should ask them that question? I highly doubt you could find any Vietnamese who would agree with you.

Had China stayed out of it, Russia stayed out of it, and Vietnam been allowed to be be a democracy they would be better off.

Paladin
10-08-2008, 11:05 AM
Had China stayed out of it, Russia stayed out of it, and Vietnam been allowed to be be a democracy they would be better off.


That is spin and an opinion, not necessarily factual, my good man. The Great Democracies are having real problems about now because the "Free Market" is crapping all over everyone because the Free Market was sold out by those people who were supposed to act in the best interest of the people. Didn't happen too well.........

kappys
10-08-2008, 11:05 AM
Had China stayed out of it, Russia stayed out of it, and Vietnam been allowed to be be a democracy they would be better off.

China attacked Vietnam after we left with US support. Were they going to install a democracy? If not why did we support them?

cutthemdown
10-08-2008, 05:21 PM
That is spin and an opinion, not necessarily factual, my good man. The Great Democracies are having real problems about now because the "Free Market" is crapping all over everyone because the Free Market was sold out by those people who were supposed to act in the best interest of the people. Didn't happen too well.........

My point was more that using Vietnam as an example because a few people go there for tourism is misleading. Geopolitics aside people in Vietnam can't speak freely, can't worship freely, and are oppressed IMO. That just goes against everything we believe in.

Do I think we need to go force democracy and freedom down peoples throats like Bush? No I don't think we should continue down that path. But we still don't have to use Vietnam as this example of how great things are when you beat America, allow a communistic dictatorship to take over and oppress the people.

We don't agree on a lot around here but we should at least be able to say freedom is always better then no freedom.

cutthemdown
10-08-2008, 05:23 PM
Only one dictator has ever been really successful and that was the General that rescued Singapore and made it what it is today. Strict but a happy populace free to engage in trade and come and go as they please.

I don't believe democracy is the only form of govt that can work. I just feel no matter what you can't oppress the people. That is what happens in Vietnam.

Paladin
10-08-2008, 05:40 PM
....We don't agree on a lot around here but we should at least be able to say freedom is always better then no freedom.

And my point is that it depends on the culture and the historical antecedants to the coming of the Great White Father. The White Man's Burdan costs too damm much, and it screws the natives too much (literally, in the case of Hawaii). Maybe the people of Iraq don't want no stinking democracy because it is more fun to bully other ethnics and "non-believers" and control the money from the oil. What do you think Mahdi wants?...

Most of those cultures are a year or two older than the US, and not all of them were failures as societies. Native Americans might differ with your ideas about democracy, among others, some were even great in very early times on local, circumscribed levels...

Besides, you know that we do not have a true democracy here, it is a representative republic.......

cutthemdown
10-08-2008, 05:48 PM
And my point is that it depends on the culture and the historical antecedants to the coming of the Great White Father. The White Man's Burdan costs too damm much, and it screws the natives too much (literally, in the case of Hawaii). Maybe the people of Iraq don't want no stinking democracy because it is more fun to bully other ethnics and "non-believers" and control the money from the oil. What do you think Mahdi wants?...

Most of those cultures are a year or two older than the US, and not all of them were failures as societies. Native Americans might differ with your ideas about democracy, among others, some were even great in very early times on local, circumscribed levels...

Besides, you know that we do not have a true democracy here, it is a representative republic.......


Like I said Democracy isn't the only form of govt that can give freedom. I will never agree with people who think a country that doesn't even allow internet access is some place that people live the good life. People in Vietnam are poor, oppressed and would have been better off had the communists lost.

Paladin
10-08-2008, 06:01 PM
Democracy and freedom equals internet access. Gotcha.....

Vietnamese would have been poor and opressed even if the US had "won". We bombed the sh*t out of them....

You never understood the meaning of the movie The Seven Samurai, did you?

cutthemdown
10-08-2008, 06:43 PM
Democracy and freedom equals internet access. Gotcha.....

Vietnamese would have been poor and opressed even if the US had "won". We bombed the sh*t out of them....

You never understood the meaning of the movie The Seven Samurai, did you?

Then why is S Korea so much better then N Korea? Why because communism stinks.

I also never said Freedom=internet access. I gave one example that shows Vietnam is a crap govt. Do we really need to go over all the things wrong with Vietnam?

kappys
10-09-2008, 07:23 AM
Like I said Democracy isn't the only form of govt that can give freedom. I will never agree with people who think a country that doesn't even allow internet access is some place that people live the good life. People in Vietnam are poor, oppressed and would have been better off had the communists lost.

That assumes that we would have installed a democratic government. Where have we ever invaded and installed a democratic government? The closest example might be Serbia, but is the only one I am aware of. South Korea was initially a dictatorship as well(how quickly we forget). It was an internal democratic movement that changed things there; as it did in almost all other countries.

In Vietnam we supported a brutal dictatorship - which the people of the country despised. I also think Gandhi put it best when he said "I doubt there are any people anywhere that wouldn't prefer their own bad government to the good government of a foreign power."

Freedom starts with having your own government, not a puppet government of the colonial master. Only after that occurs can there be a real democracy.

You are fooling youself if you think a right wing fascist government is any better than a communist party dictatorship.

alkemical
10-09-2008, 07:25 AM
That assumes that we would have installed a democratic government. Where have we ever invaded and installed a democratic government? The closest example might be Serbia, but is the only one I am aware of. South Korea was initially a dictatorship as well(how quickly we forget). It was an internal democratic movement that changed things there; as it did in almost all other countries.

In Vietnam we supported a brutal dictatorship - which the people of the country despised. I also think Gandhi put it best when he said "I doubt there are any people anywhere that wouldn't prefer their own bad government to the good government of a foreign power."

Freedom starts with having your own government, not a puppet government of the colonial master. Only after that occurs can there be a real democracy.

You are fooling youself if you think a right wing fascist government is any better than a communist party dictatorship.



++

Rohirrim
10-09-2008, 07:28 AM
North Korea isn't communist. It's a dictatorship run by a personality cult.

alkemical
10-09-2008, 07:36 AM
North Korea isn't communist. It's a dictatorship run by a personality cult.

I got that damn song stuck in my head now.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-09-2008, 07:44 AM
I got that damn song stuck in my head now.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY

The Lone Bolt
10-09-2008, 08:47 AM
Where have we ever invaded and installed a democratic government?


Japan and Germany after WWII?

kappys
10-09-2008, 12:06 PM
Japan and Germany after WWII?

You are correct there. The leadership still had the lessosn of WWI fresh in their heads and did not want to recreate the scenarios that followed WWI, and did a damn fine job of it. That ended with the Kennedy administration, although in all honesty its seems to have ended a little earlier and perhaps Kennedy merely sounded the death toll for a sensible foreign policy.

kappys
10-09-2008, 12:12 PM
Panama

If you are referring to the last invasion of Panama under Bush I in order to recall our previously installed dictator, Manuel Noriega, then you may be correct. In the end we did reenstate Endara as President, who was the democratically elected candidate. Under his government Panama now celebrates the day of mourning on the anniversary of the US invasion. However under the strict question of promoting democracy I suppose the invasion should count after the decades of prior support for ruthless dictators.

cutthemdown
10-09-2008, 12:24 PM
You are correct there. The leadership still had the lessosn of WWI fresh in their heads and did not want to recreate the scenarios that followed WWI, and did a damn fine job of it. That ended with the Kennedy administration, although in all honesty its seems to have ended a little earlier and perhaps Kennedy merely sounded the death toll for a sensible foreign policy.

Panama