The current situation in Iraq - The Orange Mane

mhgaffney · 12-11-2007, 09:31 PM

Patrick Coburn has been reporting from inside Iraq since the US invasion -- and although confined to a wheelchair, has traveled widely outside the Green zone.

He offers the clearest anlysis I have seen about the present situation and the surge. MHG

December 11, 2007

Nothing is Resolved in Iraq

What's Really Happened During the Surge?

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Has the US turned the tide in Baghdad? Does the fall in violence mean that the country is stabilizing after more than four years of war or are we seeing only a temporary pause in the fighting?

American commentators are generally making the same mistake that they have made since the invasion of Iraq was first contemplated five years ago. They look at Iraq in over-simple terms and exaggerate the extent to which the US is making the political weather and is in control of events there.

The US is the most powerful single force in Iraq but it is by no means the only one. The shape of Iraqi politics have changed over the last year though for reasons that have little to do with 'the Surge'--the 30,000 US troop reinforcements -- and much to do with the battle for supremacy between the Sunni and Shia communities.

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq turned against al Qa'ida partly because it tried to monopolize power but primarily because it had brought their community close to catastrophe. The Sunni war against the US occupation had gone surprisingly well for them since it began in 2003. It was a second war, the one against the Shia majority led by al-Qa'ida, which the Sunni were losing with disastrous results for themselves.

"The Sunni people now think they cannot fight two wars--against the occupation and the government--at the same time," a Sunni friend in Baghdad told me last week. "We must be more realistic and accept the occupation for the moment."

This is why much of the non-al-Qa'ida Sunni insurgency has effectively changed sides. An important reason why al-Qa'ida has lost ground so swiftly is a split within its own ranks. The US military--the State Department has been very much marginalized in decision making in Baghdad--does not want to emphasize that many of the Sunni fighters now on the US payroll and misleadingly called 'Concerned Citizens' until recently belonged to al Qa'ida and have the blood of a great many Iraqi civilians and US soldiers on their hands.

The Sunni Arabs, five million out of an Iraqi population of 27 million and the mainstay of Saddam Hussein's government, were the core of the resistance to the US occupation. But they have also been fighting a sectarian war to prevent the 16 million Shia and the five million Kurds holding power.

At first the Shia were very patient in the face of atrocities. Vehicles, packed with explosives and driven by suicide bombers, were regularly detonated in the middle of crowded Shia market places or religious processions, killing and maiming hundreds of people.

The bombers came from al-Qa'ida, but the attacks were never wholeheartedly condemned by Sunni political leaders or other guerrilla groups. The bombings were also very short sighted since the Iraqi Shia outnumber the Sunni three to one. Retaliation was restrained until a bomb destroyed the revered Shia al-Askari shrine in Samarra on 22 February, 2006.

The bombing led to a savage Shia onslaught on the Sunni which became known in Iraq as 'the battle for Baghdad'. This struggle was won by the Shia. They were always the majority in the capital, but by the end of 2006 they controlled 75 per cent of the city. The Sunni fled or were pressed back into a few enclaves, mostly in west Baghdad.

In the wake of this defeat there was less and less point in the Sunni trying expel the Americans when the Sunni community was itself being evicted by the Shia from large parts of Iraq. The Iraqi Sunni leaders had also miscalculated that an assault on their community by the Shia would provoke Arab Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt into giving them more support but this never materialized.

It was al-Qa'ida's slaughter of Shia civilians, whom it sees as heretics worthy of death, which brought disaster to the Sunni community. Al-Qa'ida also grossly overplayed its hand at the end of last year by setting up the Islamic State of Iraq which tried to fasten its control on other insurgent groups and the Sunni community as a whole. Sunni garbage collectors were killed because they worked for the government and Sunni families in Baghdad were ordered to send one of their members to join al Qai'da. Bizarrely, even Osama bin Laden, who never had much influence over al Qa'ida in Iraq, was reduced to advising his acolytes against extremism.

Defeat in Baghdad and the extreme unpopularity of al Qa'ida gave the impulse for the formation of the 77,000-strong anti al-Qa'ida Sunni militia, often under tribal leadership, which is armed and paid for by the US. But the creation of this force is a new stage in the war in Iraq rather than an end to the conflict.

Sunni enclaves in Baghdad are safer, but not districts where Sunni and Shia face each other. There are few mixed areas left. Many of the Sunni fighters say openly that they see the elimination of al Qai'ida as a preliminary to an attack on the Shia militias, notably the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which triumphed last year.

The creation of a US-backed Sunni militia both strengthens and weakens the Iraqi government. It is strengthened in so far as the Sunni insurrection is less effective and weakened because it does not control this new force.

If the Sunni guerrillas were one source of violence in 2006 the other was the Mehdi Army, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia nationalist cleric. This has been stood down because he wants to purge it of elements he does not control and wishes to avoid a military confrontation with his rivals within the Shia community if they are backed by the US army. But the Mehdi Army would certainly fight if the Shia community came under attack or the Americans pressured it too hard.

American politicians continually throw up their hands in disgust that Iraqis cannot reconcile or agree on how to share power. But equally destabilizing is the presence of a large US army in Iraqi and the uncertainty about what role the US will play in future. However much Iraqis may fight among themselves a central political fact in Iraq remains the unpopularity of the US-led occupation outside Kurdistan. This has grown year by year since the fall of Saddam Hussein. A detailed opinion poll carried out by ABC News, BBC and NTV of Japan in August found that 57 per cent of Iraqis believe that attacks on US forces are acceptable.

Nothing is resolved in Iraq. Power is wholly fragmented. The Americans will discover, as the British learned to their cost in Basra, that they have few permanent allies in Iraq. It has become a land of warlords in which fragile ceasefires might last for months and might equally collapse tomorrow.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006. His forthcoming book 'Muqtada! Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia revival and the struggle for Iraq' is published by Scribner in April. ytt

Bob · 12-11-2007, 09:41 PM

I think we should run for our lives....

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 12-11-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Quote:

The Americans will discover, as the British learned to their cost in Basra, that they have few permanent allies in Iraq.

The kleptocrats who wanted this war have never had any "permanent allies" anywhere - just temporary, ever-shifting alliances of convenience.

That's how the American right can help put Saddam in power and arm him one minute and denounce him as an evil despot the next.

W*GS · 12-11-2007, 10:53 PM

It's long past time to pull all our troops now. Not just from Iraq, either.

Bronco Bob · 12-12-2007, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

It's long past time to pull all our troops now. Not just from Iraq, either.

The Soviet Union is dead. There is no longer any excuse for having
our troops in Europe, Korea, Japan. There would be a good place to
bring them home from too. Put some of them on the border and
discharge the rest.

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The kleptocrats who wanted this war have never had any "permanent allies" anywhere - just temporary, ever-shifting alliances of convenience.

That's how the American right can help put Saddam in power and arm him one minute and denounce him as an evil despot the next.

Well Saddam was pretty powerful in Iraq after the 1968 coup that was helped by the Kennedy CIA. Kennedy had the CIA start working for a coup in Iraq as early as 1963. Kennedy was no right winger. So onto the 70's where Saddam became more and more powerful and eventually becomes head of the armed forces by 1976. That's smack dab in Fords tenure. So during the admins of Nixon and Ford I'm sure you are right and the USA continued to support the Bathist in Iraq. Saddam at this point is only 2nd in charge though.

So Carter takes over 1977. In Iraq Al Bakr (Iraqi pres) starts making treaties with Syria to unite the countries and make Assad the Defacto ruler. It would have left Saddam out in the cold. So he pulled a coup, called tons of people traitors and assumed power. It was days after this that you see that famous videotape of Saddam calling out the names of the guilty, having them led outside and then shot. I'm sure most of you have seen that. All the while Carter had no problem with this because the USA never wanted Syria to be in control of Iraq. Syrians are still Bathist to this day but this is the reason Saddam and Assad never got along.

So I agree with you that Saddam was an American supported dictator I just disagree that it was the right wing that did it. When it comes to stuff like this you often find repub and dem presidents that both had same policy. Then again after seeing where you fell on the political compass even Carter may seem right wing to you LABRONCOSFAN.

I think a conclusion you can make is this. If America props you up to be a dictator you better be a good little puppet or they will also take you down. America seems to hold grudges on stuff like that for a long time IE CUBA and Castro.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 12-12-2007, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Well Saddam was pretty powerful in Iraq after the 1968 coup that was helped by the Kennedy CIA. Kennedy had the CIA start working for a coup in Iraq as early as 1963. Kennedy was no right winger.

Your history isn't quite accurate.

Saddam got his political start as an anti-communist hit-man working in a CIA-backed plot to assassinate Iraq’s left-nationalist President Qasem in 1959.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So I agree with you that Saddam was an American supported dictator I just disagree that it was the right wing that did it.

Then you are choosing to ignore the facts.

I mentioned above how Hussein got his political start.

Saddam's greatest and most sustained U.S. support came from Reagan and Bush 41 (who armed him and provided him with WMD while using him to wage a proxy war against Iran in the 80s.)

"Thanks for the Memories"

A brief Flash primer on U.S.- Saddam connections:

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

The Soviet Union is dead. There is no longer any excuse for having
our troops in Europe, Korea, Japan. There would be a good place to
bring them home from too. Put some of them on the border and
discharge the rest.

I just can't believe people want to just forget about NATO and do that. Russia is not the enemy the Soviets were but to write them off as friends forever I think would be very foolish. Japan is spending more on there own defense and is also usually right there to contribute money when it's a world issue. I think China is just so huge and with the animosity between them once again we would be foolish to bail on Japan IMO.

Most of you want things that just aren't good ideas and that will never happen.

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Your history isn't quite accurate.

Saddam got his political start as an anti-communist hit-man working in a CIA-backed plot to assassinate Iraq’s left-nationalist President Qasem in 1959.

Then you are choosing to ignore the facts.

I mentioned above how Hussein got his political start.

Saddam's greatest and most sustained U.S. support came from Reagan and Bush 41 (who armed him and provided him with WMD while using him to wage a proxy war against Iran in the 80s.)

there was nothing in my post that wasn't true, all those facts and dates are right. It was in 1979 that he became the ruler of Iraq. That was during Carters time. Reagen did pump him with arms I don't dispute it. I'm just not going to let you make it out as some right wing thing. Carter did nothing when Saddam seized power, in fact he probably preferred that to Assad gaining control. The reason Saddam was taken out was because of all the support we game him. He took all that support and then thumbed his nose at the USA.

We all know the story of Iraq though bro. We know that Saddam was in and out of the country, in prison, helped by CIA, well before he became the power he turned into. Of course Kennedy never knew Saddam would gain power but he must have had his reasons for wanting the Baathist to gain control of Iraq.

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 06:10 AM

I also agree with you that the USA armed the hell out of Iraq to attack Iran. No one disputes that do they? I never said that anyways I was just pointing out that all the stuff you talk about. The CIA help by Kennedy to get Baathist in power. Nixon and Ford continuing that help while the Baathist consolidate power in Iraq. Carter not caring when Saddam assumes power. Reagan arming him to the teeth and making him powerfull. Then Bush SR/Saddam relationship falling apart and we all know how it ended.

Moral of the story is if your Americas b****, you better act like it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 12-12-2007, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I'm just not going to let you make it out as some right wing thing.

All the support Saddam received from the U.S., e.g., arms, money, intelligence, materials to make WMD, etc., came from right-wing administrations - the Reagan/Bush 41 administration being by far the biggest supporter.

If you want to deny historical fact, then go right ahead..

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 12-12-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

The CIA help by Kennedy to get Baathist in power.

The only reason for this was that the Baathists were initially seen as some sort of bulwark against communism. The regime fell just nine months later.

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The only reason for this was that the Baathists were initially seen as some sort of bulwark against communism. The regime fell just nine months later.

I'd say had the CIA let Qassim stay in power it would have been worst. He was cozying up to the Soviets and was nationalizing the oil, threatening to take Kuwait. It's a dirty game and I agree the USA did all the things you said the did. Hussein lived in Syria for awhile in an apt paid for by the CIA, or Egypt something like that I can't remember for sure. But Qassim was actually alot like Chavez if you ask me and anti-corporation type leader that America just doesn't like.

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The only reason for this was that the Baathists were initially seen as some sort of bulwark against communism. The regime fell just nine months later.

Well after they got power in 1968 they kept it until Saddam was overthrown, that was a decent run. What regime are you talking about that lasted 9 months?

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 06:36 AM

It's intersting how many messes of the cold war are still playing out. N Korean tensions, Afghanistan still a mess since the 80's when Soviets invaded.

Garcia Bronco · 12-12-2007, 09:47 AM

What division is General Cockburn in charge of?

Hotrod · 12-12-2007, 10:09 AM

Were winning the hearts and minds.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 12-12-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Were winning the hearts and minds.

Don't forget "we found the WMD, they greeted us with flowers, and the oil revenues are paying for the reconstruction."

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year

Say U.S. Presence Provoking More Conflict Than it is Preventing

Approval of Attacks on U.S.-led Forces Rises to 6 in 10

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=250&lb=hmpg1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092601721.html

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 12-12-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Well after they got power in 1968 they kept it until Saddam was overthrown, that was a decent run. What regime are you talking about that lasted 9 months?

A brief Flash primer on U.S.- Saddam connections:

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 08:12 PM

La Bronco too bad the Turks and Kurds hate each other. I sometimes think if not for the fact Turkey was important to Nato we would give the Kurds there own country in part of Iraq. I know Gore's idea I think was to split Iraq into 3 seperate countries, what do you think about that?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 12-12-2007, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

La Bronco too bad the Turks and Kurds hate each other. I sometimes think if not for the fact Turkey was important to Nato we would give the Kurds there own country in part of Iraq. I know Gore's idea I think was to split Iraq into 3 seperate countries, what do you think about that?

Gore's idea? Link?

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Gore's idea? Link?

Maybe it was Biden?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092601506.html

cutthemdown · 12-12-2007, 09:46 PM

A lot of politicians will choose to balkanize when things can' be worked out. It would be a tough sell though IMO. What would happen is Iran would pump up the Shia side, Egypt and Saudis the Sunni, and then the Kurds would be left to fight it out with Turkey. I'm not sure how I would feel about this idea I would have to think about it a lot more. I do think though I recall Gore having said in a speech three seperate zones would be a good idea. I can't however give you a link because I don't know it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 12-12-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

A lot of politicians will choose to balkanize when things can' be worked out. It would be a tough sell though IMO. What would happen is Iran would pump up the Shia side, Egypt and Saudis the Sunni, and then the Kurds would be left to fight it out with Turkey. I'm not sure how I would feel about this idea I would have to think about it a lot more. I do think though I recall Gore having said in a speech three seperate zones would be a good idea. I can't however give you a link because I don't know it.

The Sunnis were already expecting that Saudi Arabia and Egypt would back their play. So far, this hasn't happened. (No surprise where Bush's good friends the Saudis are concerned.)

mhgaffney · 12-13-2007, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Well Saddam was pretty powerful in Iraq after the 1968 coup that was helped by the Kennedy CIA. Kennedy had the CIA start working for a coup in Iraq as early as 1963. Kennedy was no right winger. So onto the 70's where Saddam became more and more powerful and eventually becomes head of the armed forces by 1976. That's smack dab in Fords tenure. So during the admins of Nixon and Ford I'm sure you are right and the USA continued to support the Bathist in Iraq. Saddam at this point is only 2nd in charge though.

So Carter takes over 1977. In Iraq Al Bakr (Iraqi pres) starts making treaties with Syria to unite the countries and make Assad the Defacto ruler. It would have left Saddam out in the cold. So he pulled a coup, called tons of people traitors and assumed power. It was days after this that you see that famous videotape of Saddam calling out the names of the guilty, having them led outside and then shot. I'm sure most of you have seen that. All the while Carter had no problem with this because the USA never wanted Syria to be in control of Iraq. Syrians are still Bathist to this day but this is the reason Saddam and Assad never got along.

So I agree with you that Saddam was an American supported dictator I just disagree that it was the right wing that did it. When it comes to stuff like this you often find repub and dem presidents that both had same policy. Then again after seeing where you fell on the political compass even Carter may seem right wing to you LABRONCOSFAN.

I think a conclusion you can make is this. If America props you up to be a dictator you better be a good little puppet or they will also take you down. America seems to hold grudges on stuff like that for a long time IE CUBA and Castro.

No -- You are wrong about Kennedy.

It's understandable -- because the issue has been so obscured. For many years I myself was disillusioned with JFK.

However, I now know different. The facts have emerged in recent years. JFK was strongly opposed to covert CIA operations. He learned a painful lesson at the Bay of Pigs. In fact, he had been set up for failure by a CIA that was out of control.

We now know that JFK planned to remove all US troops from Viet Nam by 1965.

JFK also ordered a halt to covert CIA operations in Europe -- that had been underway since the late 1940s -- I'm talking about Operation Gladio -- and the stay behind armies. This did not go down well with the CIA.

JFK also planned to disband the CIA after his 1964 re election. THis is one of the major reasons he was assassinated.

The JFK murder conspiracy had many participants -- from Wall Street to Texas oil tycoons to the CIA to the Chicago mafia. LBJ was also in the loop.

12-11-2007, 09:31 PM	#1
mhgaffney Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 9,764	The current situation in Iraq Patrick Coburn has been reporting from inside Iraq since the US invasion -- and although confined to a wheelchair, has traveled widely outside the Green zone. He offers the clearest anlysis I have seen about the present situation and the surge. MHG December 11, 2007 Nothing is Resolved in Iraq What's Really Happened During the Surge? By PATRICK COCKBURN Has the US turned the tide in Baghdad? Does the fall in violence mean that the country is stabilizing after more than four years of war or are we seeing only a temporary pause in the fighting? American commentators are generally making the same mistake that they have made since the invasion of Iraq was first contemplated five years ago. They look at Iraq in over-simple terms and exaggerate the extent to which the US is making the political weather and is in control of events there. The US is the most powerful single force in Iraq but it is by no means the only one. The shape of Iraqi politics have changed over the last year though for reasons that have little to do with 'the Surge'--the 30,000 US troop reinforcements -- and much to do with the battle for supremacy between the Sunni and Shia communities. The Sunni Arabs of Iraq turned against al Qa'ida partly because it tried to monopolize power but primarily because it had brought their community close to catastrophe. The Sunni war against the US occupation had gone surprisingly well for them since it began in 2003. It was a second war, the one against the Shia majority led by al-Qa'ida, which the Sunni were losing with disastrous results for themselves. "The Sunni people now think they cannot fight two wars--against the occupation and the government--at the same time," a Sunni friend in Baghdad told me last week. "We must be more realistic and accept the occupation for the moment." This is why much of the non-al-Qa'ida Sunni insurgency has effectively changed sides. An important reason why al-Qa'ida has lost ground so swiftly is a split within its own ranks. The US military--the State Department has been very much marginalized in decision making in Baghdad--does not want to emphasize that many of the Sunni fighters now on the US payroll and misleadingly called 'Concerned Citizens' until recently belonged to al Qa'ida and have the blood of a great many Iraqi civilians and US soldiers on their hands. The Sunni Arabs, five million out of an Iraqi population of 27 million and the mainstay of Saddam Hussein's government, were the core of the resistance to the US occupation. But they have also been fighting a sectarian war to prevent the 16 million Shia and the five million Kurds holding power. At first the Shia were very patient in the face of atrocities. Vehicles, packed with explosives and driven by suicide bombers, were regularly detonated in the middle of crowded Shia market places or religious processions, killing and maiming hundreds of people. The bombers came from al-Qa'ida, but the attacks were never wholeheartedly condemned by Sunni political leaders or other guerrilla groups. The bombings were also very short sighted since the Iraqi Shia outnumber the Sunni three to one. Retaliation was restrained until a bomb destroyed the revered Shia al-Askari shrine in Samarra on 22 February, 2006. The bombing led to a savage Shia onslaught on the Sunni which became known in Iraq as 'the battle for Baghdad'. This struggle was won by the Shia. They were always the majority in the capital, but by the end of 2006 they controlled 75 per cent of the city. The Sunni fled or were pressed back into a few enclaves, mostly in west Baghdad. In the wake of this defeat there was less and less point in the Sunni trying expel the Americans when the Sunni community was itself being evicted by the Shia from large parts of Iraq. The Iraqi Sunni leaders had also miscalculated that an assault on their community by the Shia would provoke Arab Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt into giving them more support but this never materialized. It was al-Qa'ida's slaughter of Shia civilians, whom it sees as heretics worthy of death, which brought disaster to the Sunni community. Al-Qa'ida also grossly overplayed its hand at the end of last year by setting up the Islamic State of Iraq which tried to fasten its control on other insurgent groups and the Sunni community as a whole. Sunni garbage collectors were killed because they worked for the government and Sunni families in Baghdad were ordered to send one of their members to join al Qai'da. Bizarrely, even Osama bin Laden, who never had much influence over al Qa'ida in Iraq, was reduced to advising his acolytes against extremism. Defeat in Baghdad and the extreme unpopularity of al Qa'ida gave the impulse for the formation of the 77,000-strong anti al-Qa'ida Sunni militia, often under tribal leadership, which is armed and paid for by the US. But the creation of this force is a new stage in the war in Iraq rather than an end to the conflict. Sunni enclaves in Baghdad are safer, but not districts where Sunni and Shia face each other. There are few mixed areas left. Many of the Sunni fighters say openly that they see the elimination of al Qai'ida as a preliminary to an attack on the Shia militias, notably the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which triumphed last year. The creation of a US-backed Sunni militia both strengthens and weakens the Iraqi government. It is strengthened in so far as the Sunni insurrection is less effective and weakened because it does not control this new force. If the Sunni guerrillas were one source of violence in 2006 the other was the Mehdi Army, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia nationalist cleric. This has been stood down because he wants to purge it of elements he does not control and wishes to avoid a military confrontation with his rivals within the Shia community if they are backed by the US army. But the Mehdi Army would certainly fight if the Shia community came under attack or the Americans pressured it too hard. American politicians continually throw up their hands in disgust that Iraqis cannot reconcile or agree on how to share power. But equally destabilizing is the presence of a large US army in Iraqi and the uncertainty about what role the US will play in future. However much Iraqis may fight among themselves a central political fact in Iraq remains the unpopularity of the US-led occupation outside Kurdistan. This has grown year by year since the fall of Saddam Hussein. A detailed opinion poll carried out by ABC News, BBC and NTV of Japan in August found that 57 per cent of Iraqis believe that attacks on US forces are acceptable. Nothing is resolved in Iraq. Power is wholly fragmented. The Americans will discover, as the British learned to their cost in Basra, that they have few permanent allies in Iraq. It has become a land of warlords in which fragile ceasefires might last for months and might equally collapse tomorrow. Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006. His forthcoming book 'Muqtada! Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia revival and the struggle for Iraq' is published by Scribner in April. ytt

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-11-2007, 09:41 PM	#2
Bob Ring of Famer Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 5,330	I think we should run for our lives....

12-11-2007, 10:53 PM	#4
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,499	It's long past time to pull all our troops now. Not just from Iraq, either.

12-12-2007, 06:10 AM	#10
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,418	I also agree with you that the USA armed the hell out of Iraq to attack Iran. No one disputes that do they? I never said that anyways I was just pointing out that all the stuff you talk about. The CIA help by Kennedy to get Baathist in power. Nixon and Ford continuing that help while the Baathist consolidate power in Iraq. Carter not caring when Saddam assumes power. Reagan arming him to the teeth and making him powerfull. Then Bush SR/Saddam relationship falling apart and we all know how it ended. Moral of the story is if your Americas b****, you better act like it.

12-12-2007, 06:36 AM	#15
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,418	It's intersting how many messes of the cold war are still playing out. N Korean tensions, Afghanistan still a mess since the 80's when Soviets invaded.

12-12-2007, 09:47 AM	#16
Garcia Bronco Hokie since 1993 Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 45,987 Adopt-a-Bronco: Tom Jackson	What division is General Cockburn in charge of?

12-12-2007, 10:09 AM	#17
Hotrod Self Appointed Expert aka Dortoh Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 25,136 Adopt-a-Bronco: Miss I	Were winning the hearts and minds.

12-12-2007, 08:12 PM	#20
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,418	La Bronco too bad the Turks and Kurds hate each other. I sometimes think if not for the fact Turkey was important to Nato we would give the Kurds there own country in part of Iraq. I know Gore's idea I think was to split Iraq into 3 seperate countries, what do you think about that?

12-12-2007, 09:46 PM	#23
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,418	A lot of politicians will choose to balkanize when things can' be worked out. It would be a tough sell though IMO. What would happen is Iran would pump up the Shia side, Egypt and Saudis the Sunni, and then the Kurds would be left to fight it out with Turkey. I'm not sure how I would feel about this idea I would have to think about it a lot more. I do think though I recall Gore having said in a speech three seperate zones would be a good idea. I can't however give you a link because I don't know it.